Democracy [Archive] - HungAngels - Guide to TGirls and Transsexuals

Prospero

11-05-2012, 12:18 PM

Stavros

11-05-2012, 03:49 PM

I think that the extensive coverage of US politics in the UK deludes many of us into thinking we know more than we do about US politics; that doesn't mean we are ignorant, but I think most of us have only a rudimentary knowledge of the way laws are processed through Congress, make assumptions about the actual powers a President has (and does not have) without knowing the truth, and regularly ignore the Supreme Court unless it becomes a news story. At the local level I would suggest we are pretty well ignorant, I have no real insight into how San Francisco is governed and have no idea who is on the ballot paper in most elections at the state and local level, which is where American democracy is at its most 'popular' in the literal sense. And Americans have the right to vote for a whole load of local officials we never vote for here.

I think it is wrong to claim only Republicans tamper with the electoral process; most congressional seats in the US never change because the district boundaries are fixed and both parties get down and dirty to make sure boundary changes do not affect their little fiefdoms, as a result I think the figure is that barely a third of Congressional seats are genuinely contested -what we would call marginal seats in the UK Parliament. The Democrats are not saints, they wouldn't be where they are today without a record of back-room deals, and an unhealthy dose of corruption -and after all, Obama was elected in Chicago, one of the dirtiest cities -politically- in the US; surely the name Daley means something to you. The Democrats have had their fair share of dodgy Majors too.

I think you are wrong on the Middle East -an attack on Iran would not provoke a regional conflagration, Iran has too many enemies and too few friends to make that happen. Iran would retaliate, and that is where the danger lies -not only from a spectacular 'terrorist' incident, but as is now being argued by some analysts, the use of Drones by the US is encouraging other states to acquire them. No reason why Iran should not have its own drones. I think this new chapter in the 'arms race' is the biggest long-term military headache that the Obama administration has initiated -on the advice of the military of course.

I also cannot totally agree with this: Look back at Bush. Did he make the world better? No. His interventions left the entire Middle east a much less politically stable place. I dont think even the Bush administration intended to make the world better, but the Middle East is no more or less stable because of regime change in Iraq. Regime change did not widen instability in the region, it was an act that pre-empted nature, given that Saddam was not immortal, and it did not create an 'Afghan' style Jihad against the US, drawing in thousands of Mujahideen and sucking neighbouring states into the conflict. In fact, the most notorious foreign fighter, the Jordanian al-Zarqawi was viewed by Iraqis as a pest and I believe they informed on him so the US knew where he was when he was killed. Iraq has to some extent imploded in the way it was expected to -the Kurds have consolidated their control of the north, the Shia have won elections because of their numerical superiority, and the Sunna feel isolated and left out of a system they once controlled. Iran was undoubtedly strengthened as a result, yet its clout in Iraq is mostly financial, just as its lifeline in Lebanon is lubricated with money. turn off the money tap and where does Hezbollah get its bounty from, taxes? This doesn't mark much of a change inspired by the Bush administration's intervention, and the Arab Spring has deeper roots and longer term consequences than anything Bush or Blair got up to. The whole point about the Arab Spring is that it comes from deep within the historical experience of the region, and prefigures changes that everyone is scared of -even the people trying to make it happen.

I am not sure how far the Obama administration sought a joint effort with Russia to prevent a deterioration in Syria -it could be they were taken by surprise, that Hillary Clnton wavered, that the Israelis stuck their neck in with their usual bogus intelligence; it could be the Russians refused to co-operate because their strategic interest in the naval base at Tartus is threatened by a new government in Damascus; it could be that the Russians see an opportunity to weaken the US in a region where its reputation is low; I don't know the full story, but I have a deep fear that in reality, nobody really cares that much about Syria.

Although its for a another thread, the biggest fear is regime change in Saudi Arabia -the Saudis are backing some very nasty people in Syria to prevent democracy taking root there; the US backs the Saudis up to a point; same with Qatar, and I don't doubt the other monarchies from Morocco to Oman are all feeling nervous. The US doesn't control this agenda, and for the time being it is ineffective; whether Obama in a second term, or Romney in his first can make a difference I very much doubt.

I also don't think this is a hugely important election compared to elections in the past, the trend towards a libertarian policy platform in the lower ranks of the Republican Party will continue, but I don't know if its a vote-wining trend; I suspect that many Republicans are not as extreme as their representatives, but is this enough? My guess is that Obama will win a narrow victory, I think he can only lose in the electoral college. The key to the next four years is not foreign policy anyway, but US jobs, and that is the hardest policy expectation to meet, whoever wins.

an8150

11-05-2012, 03:53 PM

Stavros

11-05-2012, 04:10 PM

Reluctantly, I'll engage with your slur of Ayn Rand, Prospero.

Have you read any of her work?

Describing her as a neo-fascist is about as politically literate as describing Stalin as a proto-Thatcherite.

This is a point I also forgot to make; thanks an8150. Rand is at the polar opposite to fascism.

Prospero

11-05-2012, 04:11 PM

Stavros - the bulk of my knowledge of US politics comes from direct contact with Americans, with my time spent in Washington and other parts of the US and from a wide reading of primarily US sources. So I find your imputation that I am ignorant a tad patronising.

Many of the points you mention - about voting for local officials etc - are very familiar to me. i was writing a short hand version of the major things that concern me and many Americans. The assertion this is a major election are not simply mine from drawn from US sources and from talking to people there.

Stavros wrote: "I think that the extensive coverage of US politics in the UK deludes many of us into thinking we know more than we do about US politics; that doesn't mean we are ignorant, but I think most of us have only a rudimentary knowledge of the way laws are processed through Congress, make assumptions about the actual powers a President has (and does not have) without knowing the truth, and regularly ignore the Supreme Court unless it becomes a news story. (I have addressed this before. I have paid attention to this for a long time - not merely now.) At the local level I would suggest we are pretty well ignorant, I have no real insight into how San Francisco is governed and have no idea who is on the ballot paper in most elections at the state and local level, which is where American democracy is at its most 'popular' in the literal sense. And Americans have the right to vote for a whole load of local officials we never vote for here.

I think it is wrong to claim only Republicans tamper with the electoral process; most congressional seats in the US never change because the district boundaries are fixed and both parties get down and dirty to make sure boundary changes do not affect their little fiefdoms, as a result I think the figure is that barely a third of Congressional seats are genuinely contested -what we would call marginal seats in the UK Parliament. The Democrats are not saints, they wouldn't be where they are today without a record of back-room deals, and an unhealthy dose of corruption -and after all, Obama was elected in Chicago, one of the dirtiest cities -politically- in the US; surely the name Daley means something to you. The Democrats have had their fair share of dodgy Majors too. (Daley means plenty to me. Do you have any evidence to suggest there were sirty tricks in Obama's election there? Smearing obama with the Ghost of Mayor Daley is somewhat cheap otherwise. There are mountains of evidence for republican attempts to tamper with the electoral process. As you well know.)

I think you are wrong on the Middle East -an attack on Iran would not provoke a regional conflagration, Iran has too many enemies and too few friends to make that happen. (Iran has friends in the Lebanon - Hizbollah and in Gaza. And would very possibly attempt to hit US bases in the region. The oonfrontation between Saudi Arabia and its allies and iran is already being fought in proxy ) Iran would retaliate, and that is where the danger lies - not only from a spectacular 'terrorist' incident, but as is now being argued by some analysts, the use of Drones by the US is encouraging other states to acquire them. No reason why Iran should not have its own drones. I think this new chapter in the 'arms race' is the biggest long-term military headache that the Obama administration has initiated - on the advice of the military of course.

I also cannot totally agree with this: Look back at Bush. Did he make the world better? No. His interventions left the entire Middle east a much less politically stable place. I dont think even the Bush administration intended to make the world better, (the object for the new american century certainly attempted to extend US power - and i agree he didn't attempt to make the world a better place. But he did make it a worse place. DThe balance of power in the region has been altered with a powerful Sh'ite community in Iraq, previously supprised by Hussain, now potentially Iranian allies. ) but the Middle East is no more or less stable because of regime change in Iraq. Regime change did not widen instability in the region, it was an act that pre-empted nature, given that Saddam was not immortal, and it did not create an 'Afghan' style Jihad against the US, drawing in thousands of Mujahideen and sucking neighbouring states into the conflict.(There is ample evidence of considerabe Jihadi action in Iraq, though this has now diminished) In fact, the most notorious foreign fighter, the Jordanian al-Zarqawi was viewed by Iraqis as a pest and I believe they informed on him so the US knew where he was when he was killed. Iraq has to some extent imploded in the way it was expected to -the Kurds have consolidated their control of the north, the Shia have won elections because of their numerical superiority, and the Sunna feel isolated and left out of a system they once controlled. Iran was undoubtedly strengthened as a result, yet its clout in Iraq is mostly financial, (Yes - this might well have happened at some point. US intervention speeded up the process, and where was the legitimacy of the invasion of Iraq? ) just as its lifeline in Lebanon is lubricated with money. turn off the money tap and where does Hezbollah get its bounty from, taxes? This doesn't mark much of a change inspired by the Bush administration's intervention, and the Arab Spring has deeper roots and longer term consequences than anything Bush or Blair got up to.(I think you misread me if you think i was suggesting that Bush and Blair had any impact on the Arab spring.) The whole point about the Arab Spring is that it comes from deep within the historical experience of the region, and prefigures changes that everyone is scared of -even the people trying to make it happen.

I am not sure how far the Obama administration sought a joint effort with Russia to prevent a deterioration in Syria -it could be they were taken by surprise, that Hillary Clnton wavered, that the Israelis stuck their neck in with their usual bogus intelligence; it could be the Russians refused to co-operate because their strategic interest in the naval base at Tartus is threatened by a new government in Damascus; it could be that the Russians see an opportunity to weaken the US in a region where its reputation is low; I don't know the full story, but I have a deep fear that in reality, nobody really cares that much about Syria. (I agree about this. )

Although its for a another thread, the biggest fear is regime change in Saudi Arabia -the Saudis are backing some very nasty people in Syria to prevent democracy taking root there; the US backs the Saudis up to a point; same with Qatar, and I don't doubt the other monarchies from Morocco to Oman are all feeling nervous. The US doesn't control this agenda, and for the time being it is ineffective; whether Obama in a second term, or Romney in his first can make a difference I very much doubt. (Yes - the future of Saudi is crucial)

I also don't think this is a hugely important election compared to elections in the past, the trend towards a libertarian policy platform in the lower ranks of the Republican Party will continue, but I don't know if its a vote-winning trend; I suspect that many Republicans are not as extreme as their representatives, but is this enough? My guess is that Obama will win a narrow victory, I think he can only lose in the electoral college. The key to the next four years is not foreign policy anyway, but US jobs, and that is the hardest policy expectation to meet, whoever wins." (On this we disagree and i have spelt out my arguments - one of the most important being the impact of Conservative appointments to the Supreme Court. I suspect if the Republicans win then there is a possibility that Romney will face a revolt of his own if he adopts the vaunted centrist policies he is now proclalming to win the undecided voters. If he loses then the party will become more radicalised. What impact that would have in the longer term is unpredictable and somewhat subject to the US economic performance over the next four years. But if Obama wins and yet the radicalised Republicans retain control of Congress then we can expect more gridlock and the blocking of any attempt at measures that might help the economy)

Prospero

11-05-2012, 04:15 PM

Loose language regarding Rand. Fascist was the wrong word. But yes i have read Atlas Shrugged and a biography of this woman. Fascism was the wrong word. But a celebration of intense selfishness is certainly accurate. There is a powerful passage in that book (or is The Fountainhead) where a train is going to crash and a figure walks through the carriage outlining why the people aboard deserve to die. Largely because they did not take responsibility for their own lives. The metaphor is pretty clear. Rand's writing was required reading for Ryan's staffers though he has since claimed he prefers certain Catholic philosophers including Thomas Aquinas.

an8150

11-05-2012, 04:29 PM

Propsero, fascism doesn't celebrate selfishness (although objectivists do celebrate what we call enlightened selfishness or enlightened self interest). Fascists come in different shapes and sizes, but the original Italian model, which is generally transplanted in other variants of the creed, demands that everyone is subordinate to the state which acts in the name of the collective to champion the deemed needs of the nation. It's a kind of militaristic, mercantilist socialism. There is a key moral distinction between saying, as a fascist might, "you deserve to die, and I'll make it happen", and "you deserve to die, and I won't lift a finger to save you".

I hold no brief for either Paul or Romney and consider it presumptuous to lecture another electorate on how it should vote. Personally, I doubt the outcome of this election will alter one jot the central feature of contemporary American governance, namely that the United States economy, according to Obama's own budget office, is due to shut down in 2027.

Prospero

11-05-2012, 04:34 PM

An8150 - I stand corrected on Fascism (as I've already acknowledged). As i said a shamefully loose use of language by me,

I was not "lecturing' - merely posting my own thoughts on why this election matters beyond the boundaries of the US - and why it matters generally to America. I think that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

broncofan

11-05-2012, 05:25 PM

I hold no brief for either Paul or Romney and consider it presumptuous to lecture another electorate on how it should vote. Personally, I doubt the outcome of this election will alter one jot the central feature of contemporary American governance, namely that the United States economy, according to Obama's own budget office, is due to shut down in 2027.
I don't think it is presumptuous for a non U.S citizen to have strong opinions about how we should vote. The more a person knows about the policies of another government the stronger the opinion they're going to form about what is right and what is not. If you've noticed, most of the threads here are by Americans who know nothing about British politics, or European politics generally and so it is quite nice that people from other parts of the world are knowledgeable about U.S politics. Otherwise, there would be much less basis for discussion. This is less a defense of Prospero than a basic observation.

I also don't really understand the basis for believing the U.S economy will shut down and that it will not matter who is in office. Yes, we have tremendous and growing national debt, but we still have a strong credit rating and a productive economy. Anyhow, whatever the projection is, I've never heard of an economic model that can sustain accurate predictions more than ten years out. I would happily bet the U.S economy is still running in 2028, but to be fair perhaps the bet should be secured by British Pounds or Euros (Actually, Euros? Perhaps the Yen is safer.).

I don't think there's anything enlightened about Ayn Rand's self-interest. It is vile and base. It is a philosophy based on turning a blind eye to the problems of the less fortunate then going a step further and blaming them for those problems. To see this philosophy used as the underpinning of governance anywhere in the world would be cause for concern for a decent observer. People who make mistakes do not deserve to die and grandiose enterpreneurs do not deserve to be lionized for their good fortune. This may sound like a strawman or an extreme interpretation of objectivism. However, if you've seen Republican governance in the U.S, it is hardly a stretch. And they are not even so bold as to blame people for their problems. Slashing disability, failing to address wage discimination, removing funding for public schools. These are the fruits of Ayn Rand's train analogy. Ayn Rand's model citizen overcomes a disability, is an auto-didact, and breaks down all barriers to discimination with her fist. Or gets a free train ticket.

trish

11-05-2012, 05:31 PM

Rand is a hack novelist. I read Atlas, Fountainhead and the Virtue of Selfishness.
It appeals especially to adolescent males who usually mature out of it. She's warmed over Nietsche for self absorbed nerds. Her writing is an understandable but reactionary response to the communist expansion that she was witness to. There is no communist threat today. There are still the equivalent of robber barons and growing economic inequity. Selfishness was never a virtue and greed is always a vice.

broncofan

11-05-2012, 05:35 PM

I

I don't think there's anything enlightened about Ayn Rand's self-interest. It is vile and base. It is a philosophy based on turning a blind eye to the problems of the less fortunate then going a step further and blaming them for those problems. To see this philosophy used as the underpinning of governance anywhere in the world would be cause for concern for a decent observer. People who make mistakes do not deserve to die and grandiose enterpreneurs do not deserve to be lionized for their good fortune. This may sound like a strawman or an extreme interpretation of objectivism. However, if you've seen Republican governance in the U.S, it is hardly a stretch. And they are not even so bold as to blame people for their problems. Slashing disability, failing to address wage discimination, removing funding for public schools. These are the fruits of Ayn Rand's train analogy. Ayn Rand's model citizen overcomes a disability, is an auto-didact, and breaks down all barriers to discimination with her fist. Or gets a free train ticket.

Actually to be fair, she does not get a free train ticket. She pays for the train ticket, the train is poorly built and unsafe, and we do nothing to prevent it from crashing. Then when it crashes we don't extinguish the flames, but interrogate the burning victims about what they've done with their lives. Then when they are non-responsive we say, "ah yes, every bit as lazy as I thought". It's much easier than allowing them to mooch off of my ingenuity.

an8150

11-05-2012, 05:51 PM

Prospero

11-05-2012, 05:55 PM

Refute is a word badly misused these days. You mean, I assume that you challenge or dispute. Refute means to categorically disprove.

And who demands coercive state action an8150? By that do you mean the application of the law? Or do you mean taxation?

And perhaps you'd care to give us you pocket summary of what you believe Rand's philosophy to be?

Prospero

11-05-2012, 06:14 PM

So here for instance is the use of the word refute in a news story from today (a rather relevent one)

is this a correct usage? I think challenge would be better unless the Republican Governer of Ohio KNOWS that Romney is talking nonsense. (Which is likely)

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/05/1138291/ohio-gov-refutes-romney-chrysler-is-the-one-automaker-that-has-increased-employment/?mobile=nc

Ohio Gov. Refutes Romney: ‘Chrysler Is The One Automaker That Has Increased Employment’

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) is the latest Republican to refute one of Mitt Romney’s biggest talking points in the state, as he told CBS Monday morning that Chrysler is adding jobs in Ohio, not shipping them to China as Romney has claimed both on the campaign trail and in radio and television ads:

ANCHOR: And is Jeep creating more jobs in Ohio or are they sending them to China?
KASICH: No. Chrysler has, has — Chrysler is the one automaker that has increased employment.

an8150

11-05-2012, 06:23 PM

In this thread alone, Prospero, coercive state action has been demanded, or impliedly demanded, by:

You, in relation to funding for PBS, your opposition to cuts in funding for "social programs", your opposition to tax cuts, your implied support for Big Government, your support for "affordable healthcare", your support for poorer and weaker citizens, your support for climate change policies.

Broncofan, with his complaints about slashing disability, failing to address wage discrimination and slashing public funding for schools.

For those of us who value human freedom, support for its opposite is a threat. Thus I refute the claim that such a threat no longer exists.

Please note, that I do not necessarily dismiss the concerns raised by you or Broncofan. I merely say that your cure is worse than the illness.

Rand, incidentally, was vehemently pro-choice.

As to a potted summary of objectivism, it stems from the belief that man exists for his own sake and to fulfill the potential of his own life. He does not, therefore, exist as a sacrificial lamb for the sake of others. That is not to say that a man may not choose to help others, but it is his choice to do so. That is, after all, the essence of the charitable impulse. Rand held that there was nothing wrong with charity, but she regarded it as overrated.

trish

11-05-2012, 06:29 PM

coercive state action (there is of course no other kind of state action)Utter nonsense! To characterize all state action as coercive is just the sort of adolescent rubbish the “objectivists” revel in.

When you will yourself to send a post are you coercing yourself? When you follow the stipulations of a contract of which you are a party, are you being coerced?

We have an institutional democracy of, by and for the people. We act through the State to address our issues and better our lot. The law reflects our collective will.

When people agree to be citizens in a representative democracy, they agree their collective actions will be decided upon in accordance with the recipes outlined in the Constitution. Accepting citizenship (by voting, for example) is agreeing to this contract.

We do not coerce ourselves to act; neither do we keep contractual promises only under threat of punishment. If you do either of these things, you should probably get some counciling.

an8150

11-05-2012, 06:36 PM

Trish, do you mean there is some way I can opt out of being a citizen in a representative democracy the better to live my life free of others' injunctions? If so, please can you tell me how I might do this?

If state action, as you say, is not coercive, then by definition it cannot be in accordance with law. If it is in accordance with law, then it is by definition coercive.

With respect, you would be better off defending what I perceive to be your principles simply by saying, "yes, it's coercive, but my beliefs justify that coercion because they are sufficiently important". I still could not agree with you, but such a statement would at least have the benefit of intellectual candour/rigour.

There is of course no law obliging me to post here.

Stavros

11-05-2012, 06:37 PM

QUOTE=Prospero;1230691

Stavros - the bulk of my knowledge of US politics comes from direct contact with Americans, with my time spent in Washington and other parts of the US and from a wide reading of primarily US sources. So I find your imputation that I am ignorant a tad patronising.
-I thought it was clear that I was referring to the British people in general, not you and me. I am aware you know more than most about US politics, and most of my criticism was of your judgement rather than your knowledge.

(Daley means plenty to me. Do you have any evidence to suggest there were sirty tricks in Obama's election there? Smearing obama with the Ghost of Mayor Daley is somewhat cheap otherwise. There are mountains of evidence for republican attempts to tamper with the electoral process. As you well know.)
-My point was that you cannot pretend the Republicans are the only party trying to fix their way to an election. But you are entitled to be biased.

Iran has friends in the Lebanon - Hizbollah and in Gaza. And would very possibly attempt to hit US bases in the region. The oonfrontation between Saudi Arabia and its allies and iran is already being fought in proxy
-Surely the whole point of the incidents by proxy that have been taking place in the Middle East since 1948 if not before, is that they avoid precisely the kind of military attacks you refer to.

the object for the new american century certainly attempted to extend US power - and i agree he didn't attempt to make the world a better place. But he did make it a worse place. DThe balance of power in the region has been altered with a powerful Sh'ite community in Iraq, previously supprised by Hussain, now potentially Iranian allies.-The Project for a New American Century was more concerned with extending US influence than a US presence, making the US indispensable to the region. It is debatable if the Middle East is worse off because of regime change in Iraq, because the regional impact was not that great, most Arab regimes were glad to see the back of Saddam anyway; there is no balance of power in the region anyway - and to assume that there is one and that it has benefited the minority Shi'a is to award them with influence they do not have. The Shi'a in Saudi Arabia are viewed as a threat as they are in Bahrain; in Lebanon they are big in numbers but limited by the Constitution; in Syria they are under attack and for the next generation will never enjoy the power they once had and wasted.

On this we disagree and i have spelt out my arguments - one of the most important being the impact of Conservative appointments to the Supreme Court. I suspect if the Republicans win then there is a possibility that Romney will face a revolt of his own if he adopts the vaunted centrist policies he is now proclalming to win the undecided voters. If he loses then the party will become more radicalised. What impact that would have in the longer term is unpredictable and somewhat subject to the US economic performance over the next four years. But if Obama wins and yet the radicalised Republicans retain control of Congress then we can expect more gridlock and the blocking of any attempt at measures that might help the economy)
-Drama, drama drama: appointments to the Supreme Court are important but historically appointing one conservative or liberal judge doesn't make a radical difference when they vote on the law rather than with their ideology, this is an over-egged pudding if ever there was one, but I am sure Americans will have a different take on it. If the Republican party's 'silent majority' do embrace libertarian causes -and I don't know how far this can go- their candidates run the risk of becoming unelectable, and in any case, candidates can say what they like on the husting, in power their radicalism is often neutered by reality -as happened to Obama over Guantanamo. Gridlock in Congress if caused by Tea Party delegates could also backfire on them.

I am not American, but as an outsider I just dont think this is as key an election as Kennedy in 1960 and Reagan in 1980, the two most important elections since 1945.
/QUOTE

broncofan

11-05-2012, 06:52 PM

Indeed there are still robber barons. Rand called this "crony capitalism".

As to whether there is a communist (or, perhaps more accurately, a statist and collectivist) threat, I refute the suggestion that there is not by reference to those people on this forum who demand coercive state action (there is of course no other kind of state action) as a response to perceived ills.

Broncofan, your claim that objectivism "is a philosophy based on turning a blind eye to the problems of the less fortunate then going a step further and blaming them for those problems" is inaccurate, but it is I agree a stirring caricature. As for any deemed relationship between Republicans and Randians, well, she generally despised the GOP during her lifetime and I doubt she'd take a different view of the Romney/Paul ticket, whatever TEA partyers under the bed you may perceive.
The only state action that has any effect is forceful. Actually, there can be tax incentives or positive reinforcements to good behavior and these are occasionally effective but for the most part there is no regulation without enforcement. But I'm sure you know that regulations cannot be implemented on the honor system.

By recognizing the existence of crony capitalism you seem to realize that some regulation is necessary. Then why label the support of any regulation "communist" or "collectivist"? Are you positing a system without any regulation at all? Then what are the origins of this dreaded crony capitalism that Ayn Rand is known so well for fighting against;?

She probably despised the GOP for their social policies. I am sure she would not want the GOP to police people's private practices or impose their religious mores on the general public. However, she would almost certainly be on board with cutting all of these programs that save hundreds of thousands of lives every year. I don't see it as a caricature to say the tea partiers are selfish individuals who have turned on their fellow citizens; victims of enabling myths about welfare moms and people faking disability. The 47% rhetoric we heard from Romney sounded a lot like the parable of the train. These people do not want to take responsibility for their lives, for their actions, and are essentially drains on society. How do I misinterpret her?

I always love how the Libertarian view is couched in rhetoric about freedom. Have you ever known anyone with a disability? Do you think they see it as a threat to their freedom if they receive monthly stipends or if employers are forced to take affirmative actions to accommodate them (with the possible defense of undue hardship if the employer's business is threatened)? You cannot say that these are the few permissible regulations since you've already gone on record labeling those who support any regulation as virtual communists.

So here is the result empirically. Sick people die in a ditch. Individuals cannot get gainful employment because of a disability. Our food and drugs are not regulated and cyanide powder is marketed for the common cold. These are not strawmen as you've already said coercive action by the government constitutes a collectivist mentality and is the road to communism. What are your prescriptions? We allow the private litigation system to regulate adulterated products after they've done their harm? Or should we get rid of litigation as well? We wait until you develop a philanthopic instinct to personally save the ditch dwellers or we just let them die in the ditch? If we save them from the ditch are we communists or decent human beings? Not addressing these problems or pretending they're aberrant is not my idea of being responsible.

trish

11-05-2012, 07:06 PM

If you participate in the elections, you've opted in. If you accepted a driver's license, you've opted in (not necessarily to being a citizen but you accepted a contract to obey the traffic laws). If you bought property in a municipality, you've opted in. Do you follow the stipulations of a contract only because you are coerced? Or do you choose to follow them voluntarily because you are a person of integrity?

When government builds an interstate, launches a satellite, agrees to let a logger harvest from a national forest, takes the census or cashes your tax check, it is not coercion.

You talk about your right to freedom and liberty. Where does that right come from? Do you think it's written into the laws of the universe? Is it to be found somewhere in quark theory? Is it god given? Rand thinks neither of these things. Freedom is a social construction (at least the right to it is), it is the result of an implicit (often explicit) agreement. Your freedoms are broad yet circumscribed by that agreement. (E.g. you cannot shoot out your neighbors window simply because you want some target practice. You cannot drive down the wrong lane on the interstate. You cannot refuse to pay your taxes. Most people follow the stipulations of the contract voluntarily; i.e. they are not coerced.) If you exempt yourself from the contract, you give up your freedom as well. If you break the contract, then yes you may be compelled to pay the penalty.

Prospero

11-05-2012, 07:11 PM

broncofan

11-05-2012, 07:27 PM

QUOTE=Prospero;1230691

-Drama, drama drama: appointments to the Supreme Court are important but historically appointing one conservative or liberal judge doesn't make a radical difference when they vote on the law rather than with their ideology, this is an over-egged pudding if ever there was one, but I am sure Americans will have a different take on it. If the Republican party's 'silent majority' do embrace libertarian causes -and I don't know how far this can go- their candidates run the risk of becoming unelectable, and in any case, candidates can say what they like on the husting, in power their radicalism is often neutered by reality -as happened to Obama over Guantanamo. Gridlock in Congress if caused by Tea Party delegates could also backfire on them.

I am not American, but as an outsider I just dont think this is as key an election as Kennedy in 1960 and Reagan in 1980, the two most important elections since 1945.

On this last point I don't pretend to know. Of course we do have the benefit of hindsight on the effects of Reagan's policies though I believe you if you say they were well advertised in advance or anticipated.

As for the Supreme Court, I think you hit the nail on the head when you say it doesn't make a difference when they rule on the law rather than ideology. However, I think it is tough to separate the two sometimes. The best example of this I can think of is Antonin Scalia. I've read some of his opinions and they are well-written and well-thought out but he has a judicial philosophy that leads to predictable results. He is an originalist in constitutional interpretation and a textualist in statutory interpretation. I may be wrong in my explanation but this is how I understand it; originalism says that the original intent of the constitutional drafters should determine our interpretation of that document and textualism says that when a law is passed only the text of that law may be interpreted (not the legislative history or the assumed intent of the legislators). When I say original intent, I think I'm referring to what they envisioned when they drafted the document, essentially freezing its application to that society.

Now if we look atoriginalism, it seems tailor made for regressive interpretations. The founders did not envision all sorts of changes in the size of our nation, in the exigencies we face, in the difficulty coordinating policy with fifty disparate views on a matter and so we cannot expand the power of the federal government without an amendment. This leads almost in due course to narrow interpretations of the commerce clause or the taxing and spending clause.

I don't know that textualism necessarily leads to a systematic political bias (though it may lead to counter-intuitive results), but I think originalism does and is consistent with narrowing the authority of the federal government and often bolstering the power of the several states. The effect could be that the intent of the legislature is thwarted by a conservative court that believes the federal government's power is narrowed, or that the states have more room in utilizing their police power. But you are right that the laws passed may not rest on that borderline where judicial philosophy determines whether they are upheld or struck down. So the effect may be fairly small over a four year term but that the post last for a lifetime can exert this incremental shift over a long course.

an8150

11-05-2012, 07:29 PM

Prospero

11-05-2012, 07:35 PM

In response to Stavros's latest post the Shia and the Sunni have as you know been in conflict almost since the very earliest days of Islam. The Wahhabist rulers of Saudi Arabia indeed do correctly see them as a threat to their power for their likely pre-disoptition to support Iran. And they are being viciously suppressed in Bahrain for exactly the same reason (they form the majority there). That is why Saudi troops and police from the UAE are in bahrain still. There are, of course, many who argue that the Shia are a much more progressive aspect of islam than the Sunni (and i think it would not be hard to support this argument when applied to the Wahhabist and Salafist elements in Sunni islam. It is from these parts of islam that the contemporary Jihadist movement draws its inspiration together with writings of Sayyid Qutb - the islamist executed by Nasser). Moderate Sunni Muslims - not Jihadists or Islamists - argue that the Shia have always hidden their true intents and even when living peacefully are biding their time for the opportunity to enforce their own brand os islam. On the other side of that equation Iran is one of the few places in the Islamic world where science and scientific inquiry has flourished after the collapse of that impulse in the world of Sunni islam with the influence of the 11th century Islamic philosopher Al-Ghazali (a point which many Islamic scholars define as the point at which the gates of Ijtihad closed - and innovation ceased.)

Prospero

11-05-2012, 07:40 PM

Prospero, you have alighted on the basic practical problem of legalised coercion. If you are cool with legalised coercion in support or condemnation of those things that uphold or antagonise your beliefs, then you can scarcely argue with someone who gains the reins of power and uses the same power to uphold his beliefs even where they are at variance with yours. Put simply, you've sold the pass, you're left with no moral argument against, for example, those who would crush aficionados of T-girls and the websites that facilitate them.

No because i hold that the liberalism i embrace is based on enlightenment values unlike the anarchy you seem to admire.

And I think both bronco and Trish have shown the fallacy of your position. Accepting any form of government involves coercion. There are some forms one would resist - national socialism or state communism or fascism. And a stolen election is a stolen election which removes any right to govern.

broncofan

11-05-2012, 07:43 PM

Very good Bronco.

There was a debate among students at Harvard which was broadcast by the BBC last week which discussed the issues of Government in the US - and a minority argued that any system which taxed them and then used their tax dollars to provide healthcare or welfare for the very poorest of society was coersive. So yes - if that is coercian then i am in favour of it. There seemed to be the notion afoot that the rich and those who have a comfortable life would, as if by magic, ensure through charity or some other method that the unfortunates of society are looked after.
All the evidence of human nature over a prolonged period of history shows this to be largely fallacious.

Indeed altruism is one defence of religion - where under islam, for instance, beleivers are required (co-erced?) to give a certain percentage of their income to charity. it's called Zakat. Christian teachings also insist on caring for your neighbour.

Ayn Rand, while she certainly wold oppose the Government ruling on our private sexual habits (and that is probably my only point of agreement with her) also expressed views wholly against us forming any system that looks after the weak.
Absolutely. A very good defense.

And one of the most interesting phenomena imo is that often people are happy to give if they know others are giving. But if they suspect one may defect or fail to give in order to sustain an advantage they tighten their purse strings. People at some level may want to do good but they are also intensely competitive and entitled when the source of their advantage is threatened. I think you are right in what you say about human nature. Whatever the quantities of competing factors, there will never be anything like the tax base we have in this country without "coercion". The sick and destitute are not cared for without "coercion".

And Trish makes a compelling argument, that what you and I and an8150 call coercion has some but not all of the elements of coercion. I don't think we're wrong for using an8150's parlance since we still carry the argument in conceding that element of forcing compliance. There is force involved, but it is part of a social contract where you give when you have the means to do so and you receive when you are in need. We opt-in to this system ad we receive myriad benefits from it. A police force protects your "property rights", your taxes pay for services that you benefit from or can potentially benefit from. There is an infrastructure in place that facilitates your commerce, and so the claim of coercion may really be a claim to the benefits of society without the costs of citizenship. I don't think we would call it coercion if upon receiving goods we are then forced to pay.

an8150

11-05-2012, 07:45 PM

Trish, you keep confusing contract law with criminal law. Of course contract law is not coercive. But the state does not govern by contract law it governs by criminal law. There's a sleight of hand in your argument: you say that by existing in, say, the UK, by going about my business as an adult as best I can, I'm entering into a contract. You then say that by doing so I agree to be bound by its terms, and it's therefore not coercive.

But the only way this stacks up is if you equate, as you seem to have done, the philosopher's notion of a social contract (of whatever kind, Rousseau's being perhaps the most famous) with the lawyer's notion of a legal contract.

To take one of your examples, that of the driving licence, when I acquire such a licence I do so because it is a legal requirement the absence of which can land me in prison. There is nothing voluntary about this, it is therefore no contract.

A real contract, on the other hand, might be formed when I choose to go to the corner shop to buy a bar of chocolate. My actions are voluntary as are those of the shopkeeper who can, if he wishes, refuse to serve me.

Simply saying, as you appear to be doing, that the act of existing in the world as it is implies consent to the way it is is to ignore the state's power to prosecute me by contrast with the shopkeeper's absence of power to make me buy his chocolate.

As to the origins of liberty, well they pre-existed the state. I need refer to no penumbra in support of my liberty, but only demand you get your hands off it. You, on the other hand, are outraged that I should make so bold. There is something wrong with me for saying to you, "get out of my life". And I, apparently, am the one who requires counselling.

No Randian, or libertarian, incidentally, would argue that a man is entitled to shoot out his neighbour's windows. Our respect for property, legally acquired, extends beyond opposition to confiscatory taxation.

an8150

11-05-2012, 07:55 PM

Simply saying, "my beliefs are best" does not answer my point, Prospero. Everybody thinks that of their own beliefs.

And I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist, although I have some sympathy with the anarchist position.

We've come some way if it is now accepted that the beliefs for which you contend are imposed coercively. You're impliedly right that at a certain point a minarchist must accept coercive power. But the minarchist argument is that this power should be so restricted that it cannot be used to, ahem, incentivise "correct" behaviour. Otherwise, when the wrong crowd gets in, as they always do, there will be no argument to prevent the imposition of their beliefs.

Anyhoo, a beautiful and lusty woman awaits my attentions, so you must excuse me for now.

broncofan

11-05-2012, 07:56 PM

Right an8150,
but what right have you to any public service without paying in? Any use of services is an affirmative acceptance. And given the way a government has to operate, there is no way to opt out in the sovereign territory of a country. The fire department will not pass over your house if you have a blaze. The police will not fail to protect you because you waive their service. You simply cannot get by without ratifying the contract by implication. The services cannot be provided on an individualized basis, as it would be an administrative nightmare.

And the government was set up here as an indirect democracy. You do not need to consent to what your elected politicians mandate. And what they mandate does not need your individual approval. This is the system you live under; either here or abroad. Living in the sovereign territory of a country subjects you to their jurisdiction. As long as you are here and earning money within that sovereign you are subject to their jurisdiction. You cannot pretend that when you start a business or work for a business you are not availing yourself of the services of the state.

trish

11-05-2012, 07:58 PM

when I acquire such a licence I do so because... you wish to drive on public highways which require such a license. You can't say there's NOTHING voluntary about this. You weighed the benefit against the cost and acquired the license.

If you shoplift a shopkeeper's chocolate he may coerce you to pay for it. Driving down a public highway without a license (or without paying taxes) is akin to shoplifting.

No Randian, or libertarian, incidentally, would argue that a man is entitled to shoot out his neighbour's windows. Our respect for property, legally acquired, extends beyond opposition to confiscatory taxation.Thanks goodness their concern is property first, endangerment of life second.

Prospero

11-05-2012, 08:09 PM

Minarchism I had neer heard of before i confess. Now i've looked it up is mighty rightly be applied only in countries such as absurdistan.

Hre, out of interest, is an article by a repentent Minarchist.

Published in 2004

The Minarchist's Dilemma
by anthony Gregory

For several years I championed minarchy. Even before I learned the term, I embraced the notion that a limited government, which protected individuals from force and fraud, but stays within the limits of that function, would best serve society.

I understood that the government should not do at least 90% of what it did. I opposed conscription, drug laws, business regulations, welfare programs, unprovoked foreign interventions and central banking. The government, as I saw it, should only maintain a small military, a small police force, and a court system, in order to protect the basic rights of people. When first considering it, I viewed the prospect of anarchy almost as frightening as totalitarianism.

I've changed my mind. I do not know at all what society would look like without a state. But I cannot imagine how its absence would breed more ills than what we have now.

Before I came to this change in thinking, I went through many philosophical transformations. I heard a talk by Samuel Edward Konkin III, now recently departed, who at the time advocated a stateless society more convincingly than anyone I had before heard. He was also, I later learned, the man who coined the term, 'minarchy.'

The dilemma I always had, when contemplating the state's existence per se, was envisioning how a state could possibly protect rights better than it did in supplying healthcare, stamping out drug abuse, or providing education. I understood the reasons why a coercive institution such as the state has inevitable difficulties in resisting corruption and delivering on its promises. I grasped the basic economics, I read the history, I witnessed it in practice.

Or, rather, malpractice.

I comprehended that the state, properly defined, possessed a monopoly on force. This always puzzled me. It obviously should not have a monopoly on defensive force (I totally understood the arguments against gun control). So what kind of force does it monopolize?

The initiation of force. The precise disease I envisioned the ideal state to combat.

I knew that government created monopolies in utilities, education, and other services. I understood that cartels, protected from competition, ended up controlling much more of the economy than they would in a free market.

And yet, I trusted the minimal, libertarian state to restrain itself, and to refrain from using its own powers to expand its 'market share' over coercion beyond what the free market would provide.

I realized, on a subliminal level, that any 'state' that obeyed within the confines of non-aggression, barred from the powers of taxation and incapable of forbidding others from competing with it, would cease to be an actual state at all.

I realized, having learned basic American history, that the original American republic, so heavily revered by the minarchists for its unprecedented limits, grew and expanded enormously at its every opportunity. I wondered how I could trust states, however small, not to grow into big ones. It seemed to be in their interest, throughout history.

So my philosophical dilemma with minarchism, which I defended, and anarchism, which I opposed yet better understood, was with me for several years. But I put up with it because I thought it was impractical to believe in anarchy, which would never exist. I might as well shoot for the smallest, least oppressive government possible.

My pragmatic reasons for giving the state its perfunctory respect ended shortly after 9/11. I thought to myself, 'Okay, Anthony, here's your chance to see if your principles can withstand today's terrible events. It's wartime, and you believe that the government has only one function ' to protect its citizens from force and fraud.'

I read the reactions to 9/11 written by hard-core libertarians and anarchists. I read the reactions written by 'small-government-conservative-libertarians.'

The anarchists and hard-core ones tended to say the government should, if anything, send people out to find the terrorists and arrest them.

The more 'moderate' libertarians tended to support the war in Afghanistan.

It wasn't very long until I realized that the government's response to 9/11 had no hope in improving anything. In Afghanistan, it immediately embarked on the same kind of policy that incited 9/11 in the first place. At home, it violated all sorts of civil liberties that I considered indispensable in a free country, and unnecessary sacrifices for a genuine battle against terrorism.

A few months after 9/11, it all came together for me. Of course an institution that forcefully extracts two trillion dollars from Americans every year, systematically imprisons peaceful people, and kills countless human beings in other countries for no good reason is going to have difficulty correctly addressing the crises that result from its killing. Of course a government that kills more than ten thousand people a year by prohibiting them from obtaining life-saving medicines is going to have problems accounting for innocent lives in its wartime calculations.

Not all statists or state agents are 'evil' ' far from it. But it is a very dangerous idea that certain select people ' whether through elections or inheritance ' should monopolize the power to use preemptive force against innocent people, and should ultimately only be accountable to itself.

I do not think we will see a stateless society in my lifetime. But I am sure we will not see a state that conforms to the minarchists' ideals. The closer we get, the better, but I see no reason not to aspire for the best government as Thoreau imagined it: none at all. It's certainly more consistently idealistic than what the minarchists imagine, and yet it's at least possible, whereas the existence of a lasting, minimal state is a hopeless fantasy.

I believe that minarchists, in their advocacy and intellectual contributions, do far more good than harm. But sometimes their most frustrating inconstancies and difficulties in connecting with other people stem from their faith in the minimal state, a conceptual exception that takes bites from their conceptual rule.

Whether we call ourselves anarchists or not is not of primary importance. Nevertheless, we should make a habit of questioning the state as a general abstraction every time we ponder its particulars. We should challenge its basic premises, even as we critique its consequences. The more we engage in this mental exercise ' as decadent as it may seem to the loyal minarchist ' the more we will understand the reasons behind the state's failures, and the more we can productively explain to others why they occur."

Mind you whoever AN8150 is he rightly said he can't be forced to post here - or read anything we post anyway. And on thing he and I do seem to agree. Being with a beautiful woman is far preferable to this discussion. That is where i am too heading now (having promised with my first post here NOT to post any more on the forthcoming election.)

Good luck everyone. As Trish reminds everyone in the main forum VOTE VOTE VOTE....

Willie Escalade

11-06-2012, 01:36 AM

The way Americans chime in on other countries' politics with an opinion, you from other countries have the exact same right to as well; I welcome it.

an8150

11-06-2012, 01:55 AM

Prospero, Rand did not oppose "us" forming any system that would assist people. What she opposed, and what I oppose is anybody forming such a system and coercing my support for it.

an8150

11-06-2012, 01:59 AM

As to Anthony Gregory's dilemma, if I have understood it correctly, it is a familiar one, and it is why I said I have some sympathy with anarchism (more specifically with anarcho-capitalism). It is a source of intense debate among minarchists how to ensure that limited small government remains limited small government. The anarcho-capitalists think we're living in la-la land because they say it can't be done, because people like you will always come along and find ways to expand the remit of government. History is certainly on the side of the anarcho-capitalists (I know little, and understand less, of anarcho-syndicalists) in that argument.

an8150

11-06-2012, 02:14 AM

trish, in my experience, respect for human life among libertarians and objectivists exceeds by far that of any other political creed. Nor is my experience unique. The political creed most deliberately and successfully destructive of human life is that of totalitarian communism, which is an extreme variant of the state mandated altruism apparently so popular here.

You're right that I choose to drive on public highways, and that is a voluntary action on my part (although travel is scarcely as whimsical as the purchase of a chocolate bar), but the purchase of a driving licence is not. I suppose the correct chocolate bar analogy would require me to purchase a licence to buy chocolate bars before I am allowed to buy a chocolate bar. No shopkeeper would wish for such a system. Until the health Stasi really start to feel their onions, I can just, er, buy a chocolate bar, rather than requiring a licence to do so. By contrast I cannot just drive on a road. I'd like to, but I can't. My wishes are one thing. The state's demands of me are another.

And only the state, and its supporters, think this way, which is a pretty good example of why enlightened self interest (that of the shopkeeper's desire to sell me a chocolate bar) is more self-evidently desirable than the altruism of the state in poking its nose into my travel habits.

an8150

11-06-2012, 02:24 AM

Broncofan, "but what right have you to any public service without paying in? Any use of services is an affirmative acceptance. And given the way a government has to operate, there is no way to opt out in the sovereign territory of a country. The fire department will not pass over your house if you have a blaze. The police will not fail to protect you because you waive their service. You simply cannot get by without ratifying the contract by implication. The services cannot be provided on an individualized basis, as it would be an administrative nightmare.

And the government was set up here as an indirect democracy. You do not need to consent to what your elected politicians mandate. And what they mandate does not need your individual approval. This is the system you live under; either here or abroad. Living in the sovereign territory of a country subjects you to their jurisdiction. As long as you are here and earning money within that sovereign you are subject to their jurisdiction. You cannot pretend that when you start a business or work for a business you are not availing yourself of the services of the state."

You place me in a heads you win, tails I lose position.

What right have I to any public service without paying in? None at all. Fine by me. I'm happy to pay for what I want, and if I can't afford it I go without. But wait. You say there is no way to opt out. And you're right. There isn't. If the much-vaunted British National Health Service fails to provide me with the hip replacement I need (I assume you're American, so this may seem a bit weird to you, but basically we have healthcare rationing over here; don't worry, if you're keen on the idea I gather you'll be getting a lot of it in the nearish future), will I get my money back? Jog on, matey. I can't opt out and I don't want in. But you statist chaps know what's best for me, so that's ok.

The services cannot be provided on an individualised basis? Not when government directed they can't, that's for sure. So what? Man up, do without them. You have nothing to gain but your liberty.

an8150

11-06-2012, 02:37 AM

Hang about, Broncofan. In an earlier comment you wrote that, "We opt-in to this system ad we receive myriad benefits from it."

Then you wrote, "And given the way a government has to operate, there is no way to opt out".

Look, I've never opted in. Seriously. I live where I was born. I asked trish earlier if there was some way I could get out of this situation but I still haven't had a reply. And it's the transnationalist progressive crowd (IPCC, anyone?) who want to impose global governance such that there quite literally is nowhere to run to. At least East Doughnuters had hope of escaping over the wall.

trish

11-06-2012, 02:50 AM

The fee for your license helps pay for the road. So yes, driving without a license is akin to shoplifting. True, buying a chocolate is whimsical; driving is not. The effort of acquiring the license assures us that you have at least a minimal understanding of the safe rules of driving. If you choke on candy it won't endanger my life. If you choke on the rules of driving you may wind up killing someone.

in my experience, respect for human life among libertarians and objectivists exceeds by far that of any other political creed.Certainly not my experience.

an8150

11-06-2012, 03:16 AM

Broncofan, "By recognizing the existence of crony capitalism you seem to realize that some regulation is necessary. [Er, no. I say crony capitalism is caused by, among other things, regulation] Then why label the support of any regulation "communist" or "collectivist"? [See my previous answer; also, because regulation is invariably justified in terms that invoke the needs of a collective, most commonly "consumers"]. Are you positing a system without any regulation at all? [Yes] Then what are the origins of this dreaded crony capitalism that Ayn Rand is known so well for fighting against;? [Primarily, large government budgets and government direction of other economic activity not amounting to direct spending, which will always be dispensed in favour of the politically well-connected]

She probably despised the GOP for their social policies [yes, but she was also scathing of the GOP as a Trojan horse for government economic intervention]. I am sure she would not want the GOP to police people's private practices or impose their religious mores on the general public. However, she would almost certainly be on board with cutting all of these programs that save hundreds of thousands of lives every year . I don't see it as a caricature to say the tea partiers are selfish individuals who have turned on their fellow citizens [you don't? so if I've got this right, you're prepared to throw Smith into chokey for not stumping up for your hip replacement and you're the righteous altruist; Smith on the other hand, who merely wants nothing to do with you, has turned on you?]; victims of enabling myths about welfare moms and people faking disability [indeed. I'm sure none of that happens]. The 47% rhetoric we heard from Romney sounded a lot like the parable of the train. These people do not want to take responsibility for their lives, for their actions, and are essentially drains on society. How do I misinterpret her? [please refer to my other relevant answers]

I always love how the Libertarian view is couched in rhetoric about freedom [do you? why? or are you suggesting that libertarians care nothing for freedom?]. Have you ever known anyone with a disability? [yes. me] Do you think they see it as a threat to their freedom if they receive monthly stipends or if employers are forced to take affirmative actions to accommodate them (with the possible defense of undue hardship if the employer's business is threatened)? [you're confusing freedom with ability, or disability]. You cannot say that these are the few permissible regulations [I do not] since you've already gone on record labeling those who support any regulation as virtual communists [actually I think I said right at the start that I prefer the terms "statist" and "collectivist"; moreover, I think that the puritan strain, as seen in health drives, for instance, also plays a significant role; as easy as it would be entirely to blame the communists, I think that would be inaccurate. For me, the real enemy is those who seek power, dominance, control. Their vehicles change - religion, economics, nationalism, but their basic motive is the same].

So here is the result empirically. Sick people die in a ditch [why would they go to a ditch? what is your evidence for this? In Britain we've got more welfare than you can shake a stick at, have done since the Great Society was a glint in its creator's eye, and, guess what? people still die from preventable causes; in some cases, they do so [I]because of welfare; see: Victoria Climbie]. Individuals cannot get gainful employment because of a disability [depends on the disability; no arms, no legs, you're not going to be operating a lathe, are you? or am I being a bigot? It reminds of the Life of Brian. "Where's the foetus gonna gestate? You gonna put it in a box?" "Don't you oppress me?"]. Our food and drugs are not regulated [yes they are; besides, I've tasted American food, only a bureaucrat could make it taste that way] and cyanide powder is marketed for the common cold [and?]. These are not strawmen as you've already said coercive action by the government constitutes a collectivist mentality and is the road to communism [it's the road to serfdom, channelling Hayek; I've just realised I have no idea what point you're making in this paragraph...]] . What are your prescriptions? [Ho, boy! How about we start from the presumption that government is not the answer to everything that goes wrong. Or right. How about a bit of that rugged, self-reliant individualism you lot are famed for?] We allow the private litigation system to regulate adulterated products after they've done their harm? [the incentive is the same as with state regulation;I think you'll find the end result is identical in terms of minimising risk]. Or should we get rid of litigation as well? [no, I have no problem with private law; it beats private vendetta as a hallmark of civilised conduct] We wait until you develop a philanthopic instinct [how do you know I don't already have a philanthropic instinct? or must I parade my virtue before I become a sufficiently signed-up member of the human race properly to tell you to get your hands of my freedom?]to personally save the ditch dwellers or we just let them die in the ditch? [if it were me, I'm sure I'd find a nice cozy doorway; where are these ditches coming from?] If we save them from the ditch are we communists or decent human beings? [go ahead and save whomsoever you like. I'm not stopping you. And, if I see fit, I'll do likewise. But coercing me to behave as you decide I should is merely theocracy] Not addressing these problems or pretending they're aberrant is not my idea of being responsible. "

an8150

11-06-2012, 03:27 AM

trish, "The fee for your license helps pay for the road. So yes, driving without a license is akin to shoplifting. True, buying a chocolate is whimsical; driving is not. The effort of acquiring the license assures us that you have at least a minimal understanding of the safe rules of driving. If you choke on candy it won't endanger my life. If you choke on the rules of driving you may wind up killing someone."

As far as I am aware, in the UK it does no such thing, although I am sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong. I have no problem paying the owner of something for using it, if he is willing for me to use it.

I don't think I've mentioned shoplifting. But if you're right, doesn't it then follow that if the state fails to provide a service that you have demonstrably paid for, it has defrauded you?

My preference would be for the proper owners of roads freely to contract with their users those terms of use convenient to them. I have no problem with the utility of commonly agreed rules of vehicular conduct. But I say that they are matter of private contract and the law of negligence.

broncofan

11-06-2012, 03:45 AM

Hi an8150,
I will get to the rest of those points when I have a chance. But in the cyanide powder paragraph I was saying what would happen sans regulation. This is the world I deduced you prefered from some of your posts. I consider all of those things not to be the present state of affairs but the state of affairs if you had your way. In short, one part chaos, one part misery.

As for disability, it is fairly well-known that people have stereotyped views of the extent to which disability bears on an individual's other capacities. Surely an amputee should not operate manual machinery but a man who is blind can answer telephones. Private employers would not hire these individuals without some push from the government. People with HIV can work in all sorts of jobs but there was a point in time when such individuals were stigmatized to the extent they could not be hired for jobs where they posed no direct (or indirect) threat. Employers have legal defenses to the government's mandate against discrimination and do not have to hire people who cannot in fact do the job. They are just barred from irrationally stigmatizing such folks and systematically excluding them from the workforce.

A great deal of crony capitalism results from a lack of regulation. Without regulators what is to prevent anti-competitive acts such as price fixing? What is to prevent insurers from not holding enough money in their reserves? What is to prevent banks from lending more than they can afford to lend? Surely you're not going to tell me a bank would never do something so stupid or make an imprudent investment decision unless the government encouraged them to?

The problem you cite with not being able to identify the exact number saved from such policies is a problem faced in all the social sciences. You can only get empirical numbers for the policy you enact and when comparing previous numbers with more recent figures to compare policy alternatives you don't have anything like ceteris paribus. However, studies do attempt to address these problems and take a serious approach to developing a methodology to overcome them. For instance, when you force employers to provide a "reasonable accommodation" to their disabled employees, and the number of disabled people with income below the poverty line falls in a ten year period there could be causes other than the enacted policy.

But such studies attempt to account for those differences and certainly requiring employers to make some attempt not to stigmatize the disabled does bear a logical relationship to increased welfare for such people. The inability to control all extraneous factors and re-design the world in the form of a controlled experiment is hardly an excuse for ignoring the evidence we do have.

Also, you don't have to prove you are philanthropic. I am just somewhat skeptical that those demanding to opt out of a system of taxation will help address the unavoidable problems that less fortunate people in society face.

broncofan

11-06-2012, 03:50 AM

You place me in a heads you win, tails I lose position.

.
Living in any society is necessarily a take it or leave it proposition. I don't know how it is administratively possible to have anything else in an indirect democracy. If enough other people felt the way you do then I would have to live in the hellhole you envision and call utopia:p

Cheers. As you chaps say over there;)

Stavros

11-06-2012, 04:01 AM

broncofan

11-06-2012, 04:14 AM

I know it may sound like I've been living in a cave but I don't know much about Donohue (Phil I think) except that I think he had a talk show. But I thought he presented himself extremely well there. That was nearly a perfect rebuttal to Crazypants' racist diatribe. You make a broad generalization like that and say a group of people are barbarians undeserving of dignity and you cannot expect them to not hold a grudge.

robertlouis

11-06-2012, 06:53 AM

I've enjoyed reading this thread, and it's a tribute to all the contributors that the debate has been conducted not only intelligently but with a degree of constraint and courtesy that is usually sadly lacking in this place. Keep up the good work ladies and gentlemen. There is a place for civilised discourse after all.

Ben

11-06-2012, 08:55 AM

I've been criticised by some - almost invariably on the right - for "sticking my limey nose" into American politics.

I do not regret that at all.

I post stuff here about US politics at this crucial time because I care - about America, about democracy and about the future.

Okay.

So this will be my last post before America votes tomorrow. Votes in an election which is clearly one of the most important for a long time.

It matters for many reasons. And these go beyond America's national boundaries.

The US is the most powerful nation in the world. How it is governed affects us all.

So why is it an important election?

!. Because the future of democracy is in the balance here.

There have already been attempts by the Republican party to tamper with the electoral process. It was a Republican initiative which enabled corporations to our millions into the process via super pacs.

The furore over IDs for voters. This is being stirred up almost exclusively in place here poor people from the black and Hispanic communities vote. The Republicans want to stop them. Because they vote, in large part, for the Democrats. Everyone has a right to vote - whether they vote for Communists or the Nazi party!

Now the Supreme court is set to consider - and perhaps pass - a change which will remove safeguards from States with historically bad records on voting for ethnic minorities. These safeguards were put in place in the late 1960s to prevent any State from arbitrarily changing the voting rules. (See the powerful arguments on this from the Professor of Jurisprudence at Harvard, Ronald Dworkin posted here some days ago for a fuller explanation of this)

2. Climate change. A crucial issue and though Obama has a thin record on this, the GOP is hostile to the whole notion of climate change. They will take away from all kinds of initiatives designed to do something to fight the process of climate change. They are hostile to the science which has virtually proved that climate change is underway.

In many respects they are hostile to science itself.

3. Help for the poorer and weaker US citizens. You'e seen the real Romney in that leaked speech earlier this year. You've seen how Romney operates as a business man in his savage years with bain - throwing thousands out of work to enrich himself.

We know about Ryan's philosophy - inspired by that mediocre Ultra-Conservative thinker Ayn Rand. (I have amended this after it was rightly pointed out that the use of the word fascist was lazy)

They say they will fix the economy but won't say how. But they do plan tax cuts for the wealthy.

A Romney administration will scrap affordable health care if they can. It was a move designed to make health care available to more Americans.

They will cut spending on all manner of other social programs. The behaviour of the tea-party infested Congress since 2010 with its zealous efforts to cut spending on everything (at one point voting for moves that would lead to thousands of public employees in the US losing their jobs). This will be accelerated under an incoming GOP administration.

The gridlock in Washington over the past two years - which the GOP has ignored when accusing Obama of failing to fix the economy - is of GOP making. The new Tea Party congressmen are immune to reasoned argument. They are implacable in their hatred of Government. Romney will discover this if he becomes president. Unless he bows to the will of big business - people like the Koch Brothers.

Romney reckons he can fix the US economy. But refuses to spell out how this work - aside from tax cuts across the board.

4. Women's rights. We've seen the attitude of some of the more extreme Republicans to Rape. Any pregnancy that results is a gift from God. Women's bodies will resist pregnancy from rape. etc etc....They are a lunatic fringe. But a vocal one representing a wider body of belief among like-minded bigots. And they have not been disowned. Women's rights are threatened. In all probability a new and Conservative dominated supreme court will throw out the right to abortion. (Roe v Wade) And contraception issues.

5. The rights of the gay and the transgendered. Would these be safe under a Romney administration. Not if he listens to the religious right - a powerful part of the machine that might put him into office. Under Obama there has been real progress. Expect that to be at least stalled under a GOP administration. if not reversed.

8. Foreign policy. Look back at Bush. Did he make the world better? No. His interventions left the entire Middle east a much less politically stable place.

Look at Obama's record. Troops out of iraq. A plan to pull Americans out of the Afghanistan muddle (a muddle because Bush dropped his eyes from the issues there for the fallacious invasion of iraq). Libya. Stupid accusations and smears by the Romney campaign - oft repeated here - about the lack of foresight by the US Government in protecting your ambassador. Wrongful accusations as if in the disorder that is Libya effective intelligence can work. This is a bigger subject than i plan to unpack here.

The Arab spring. Should the US have NOT supported the notion of real democracy among the oppressed Arab populations?

Israel. Liberal Israelis recognise that Obama has been a good friend to israel. Romney's principle support there is inspired by the nation's largest circulation paper - a free sheet owned by the Vegas casino magnate from the radical right winger Sheldon Edelson (whose influence on both US and Israeli politics is increasingly pernicious) a man who is in favour of the expansion of Israeli settlements and a supporter of Netanyahu. As will a Romney administration. (A huge part of his campaign funding comes from Edelson). Romney has already publicly said he believes the palestinians have NO INTEREST in peace,

And Iran. The sabre ratting by Romney suggests they'd launch a pre-emptive strike again Iran - or support an Israeli one. The result would be a regional conflagration. Iran is an issue that calls for clear heads and clear thinking.

9. The Supreme Court. Three justice are likely to retire during the life of the next administration. If they are appointed by Romney you can be sure they will be young Conservatives - enabling the sort of constitutional changes that a balanced Supreme Court is a hedge against. So expect women's rights to be curtailed. perhaps civil rights.(in voting terms) And perhaps a breach of the wall between church and state.

10. The influence of the Tea party. it isn't a party no - but it has a broadly united vision. it is against "big Government." It is against much Government at all. It has already gridlocked Congress and prevented Obama from taking significant action to help the economy. The Tea party (funded via big business through think tanks, foundations and other networks) is a tool of big business which smokescreens of disinformation try to hide. it has corrupted the Republican party - leading to the ousting of many long serving and conviction politicians and their replacement by extremist zealots. A Romney administration will either kow tow to them or face a fight for the soul of the party.

11. Romney himself. This man is a shape shifter. He serves only his own self interest - shrugging off previously held positions as and when he perceives he needs to alter to succeed. His father had convictions. Romney junior appeared to have convictions when he introduced his health care reforms in Massachusetts. Now he had disowned them and has embraced the Right in his will to power. Convictions are simply another piece of clothing he puts on and takes off as his own ambitions require.

12. The media. Will PBS be started of funding under a Romney administration. That looks likely. So Fox News with its lies and distortions for all? Yep the propaganda machine is in full flow.

13. Ryan would be President if Romney were removed. Do you really want this?

So there we are. I am sure i've missed many issues here.

In the end the issues are for America to decide. we sit on the sidelines. We hope and pray the US will make the right decision.

In the view of most of the world that should be another four years for Obama and the Congress back in Democrat control.

We should note the stark difference between elections and, say, meaningful democracy. (And, too, the core of democracy is to bring about equality. And this happens by creating a strong and burgeoning middle class. Is this happening? I mean, wages for 99 percent of the population have been STAGNANT since 1973. Even the top 1 percent have seen a slight gain. It's really the top 0.01 percent who've seen staggering gains. I mean, this is the antithesis of democracy.
It's like the difference between nations and states. A nation is a group of people who are brought together by a common language and a common culture. And culture is not Wal-Mart, it isn't McDonald's. It's a set of values. And a state is a top-down political structure.)
50 percent of Americans will not vote. For good reason. Namely it's two rich males. Both went to the same school. Both are bought and paid for -- and serve -- the same corporations and the same oppressive system. (I mean, how will a lower-class black single mother be served by either Romney or Obama? How will her interests be served? And can she in any way participate in the decision-making process? And can she INFLUENCE public policy? And, too, does she have as much influence as, say, Lloyd Blankfein?)
I mean, yeah, it makes a slight difference who wins. Very slight. But as Chris Hedges pointed out: who do you want to take your poison from.
There will be another financial crash. It's merely a question of when. Will a president Romney prevent it? No. Obama? No. Banks are bigger. And up to their prior shenanigans.
I mean, we're led to believe that there's a stark difference between Dems and Republicans. Is there?
Both support harmful free trade agreements. Harmful to the general population and the overall environment. But great for the top tier of the populace. (I mean, Obama and Romney pretty much agree on foreign policy, too. Romney, however, might be more willing to attack Iran.) Both support policies that are creating further inequality. Both serve destructive oil companies. They won't do anything about global warming. Nor can they. They serve their masters. Who can't care about global warming. And that's very rational from a business perspective. Remember corporations, ultimately, can't care about the planet. Corporations are designed to grow and grow and grow and grow. What will that, ultimately, do to the natural world. I mean, think 7 generations into the future. What impact will very rational corporate interest have on them?
And, too, I think the plundering of the world is really an attack on our spirit as human beings.
Anyway, at the heart of the global warming problem is consumption. We all need to look in the mirror. We all need to take personal responsibility.
But Americans, who consume a quarter of the world's energy resources, won't stop....
I mean, oil companies do create pollution. What's the consequence of that? Cancer. 1,000 Americans die every single day from cancer. But, again, oil companies can't think about that. Industry can't think about that. They think: quarterly profits. Not cancer rates.
I mean, we should all guffaw... when we say: this is a democracy. (Yes! We've, again, elections. We have a great deal of freedom. We've a lot of stuff. We can consume. We can consume a lot of corporate junk.
I think they want us to equate consumption with freedom, with democracy. I mean, Milton Friedman pointed out: if you can create a free market, well, you've freedom. Ya know, you've the "democratic" freedom to choose -- in a democratic fashion -- between Pepsi and Coca-Cola. Thereya go: there's your democracy.)
Again, the policies of both parties, of both candidates are pretty much the same. Because both parties simply serve the super-rich. Republicans, if they are even a political
party anymore, simply serve a very tiny sliver of the populace. And Dems, especially under Obama, are rapidly moving in that direction.
Inequality is getting worse. And as Paul Krugman pointed out: Wall Street does better under Democrats than Republicans.
A President Romney will simply cut taxes for the super-rich. The deficit will explode. But who cares. It ain't his money.
Anyway, the notion of a profound democracy is a joke.
I think, really, it has lost all meaning.
Yep!, the word "democracy" has pretty much been rendered meaningless.

danthepoetman

11-06-2012, 09:00 AM

Final choice in a few hours...

martin48

11-06-2012, 09:41 AM

All I can add, from this side of the pond, is "Don't fuck it up, America."

an8150

11-06-2012, 10:28 AM

an8150

11-06-2012, 10:45 AM

broncofan,"Living in any society is necessarily a take it or leave it proposition. I don't know how it is administratively possible to have anything else in an indirect democracy. If enough other people felt the way you do then I would have to live in the hellhole you envision and call utopia"

I thought you said I couldn't opt out? If it's a take it or leave it proposition, how do I leave it? where do I go? Serious question. As it happens, I agree that there's no leaving it (I've just remembered that the title of this thread is "Democracy"). From the point of view of people like me, the social democratic hell created by people like you is one I just have to put up with. Which rather gives the lie to the suggestion that all our ills are caused by evil free market capitalists because, as you go on to imply, you don't have to live in my hellhole. Although I have no idea how you know it would be a hellhole, since you've never experienced it. Nor have I. Why don't we give it a try, see what happens?

an8150

11-06-2012, 11:15 AM

broncofan, "I will get to the rest of those points when I have a chance. But in the cyanide powder paragraph I was saying what would happen sans regulation [then the cyanide powder is added either because in the doses used it is beneficial or because the producer wants to kill or harm, or is reckless as to that possibility; in the former cases, no harm done, in the latter, both criminal and civil common law would come to the aid of the victim]. This is the world I deduced you prefered from some of your posts. I consider all of those things not to be the present state of affairs but the state of affairs if you had your way. In short, one part chaos, one part misery [no producer's enlightened self interest is served by landing himself with lawsuits or prosecutions; a producer's enlightened self interest is best served by best serving those he chooses to serve].

As for disability, it is fairly well-known that people have stereotyped views of the extent to which disability bears on an individual's other capacities. Surely an amputee should not operate manual machinery but a man who is blind can answer telephones. Private employers would not hire these individuals without some push from the government [why not, if they're as valuable as you suggest?]. People with HIV can work in all sorts of jobs but there was a point in time when such individuals were stigmatized to the extent they could not be hired for jobs where they posed no direct (or indirect) threat [such decisions may or may not have been ignorant, depending on the state of medical knowledge at the time, but you're overlooking the importance of freedom of association and of freedom of contract]. Employers have legal defenses to the government's mandate against discrimination and do not have to hire people who cannot in fact do the job. They are just barred from irrationally stigmatizing such folks and systematically excluding them from the workforce.

A great deal of crony capitalism results from a lack of regulation. Without regulators what is to prevent anti-competitive acts such as price fixing? [regulators are protection rackets. and having conferred their protection, they raise barriers to entry which entrench the anti-competitive behaviour you complain of] What is to prevent insurers from not holding enough money in their reserves? [the rule of caveat emptor] What is to prevent banks from lending more than they can afford to lend? [ditto; and, incidentally, central banks/governments acting as lenders of last resort underwrites irresponsible bank lending] Surely you're not going to tell me a bank would never do something so stupid or make an imprudent investment decision unless the government encouraged them to? [that is precisely what has happened]

The problem you cite with not being able to identify the exact number saved from such policies is a problem faced in all the social sciences [yes, and it's a profound problem, to put it mildly]. You can only get empirical numbers for the policy you enact and when comparing previous numbers with more recent figures to compare policy alternatives you don't have anything like ceteris paribus [so how do you know my utopia would be a hellhole?]. However, studies do attempt to address these problems and take a serious approach to developing a methodology to overcome them. For instance, when you force employers to provide a "reasonable accommodation" to their disabled employees, and the number of disabled people with income below the poverty line falls in a ten year period there could be causes other than the enacted policy.

But such studies attempt to account for those differences and certainly requiring employers to make some attempt not to stigmatize the disabled does bear a logical relationship to increased welfare for such people [For present purposes I'm content to assume you're right; the fact remains that this increased welfare has come at a cost of diminished human liberty, and in a 1,001 tiny ways a number of people's lives have been made slightly worse in order to achieve that improvement; you say that's a good thing; I say, who are you to trade one man's welfare for another's?] . The inability to control all extraneous factors and re-design the world in the form of a controlled experiment is hardly an excuse for ignoring the evidence we do have [I find this a curious argument given that it is the statists and collectivists who are so fond of collecting data and trying to apply levers and pulleys and incentives to that data to produce what they consider a desirable outcome].

Also, you don't have to prove you are philanthropic. I am just somewhat skeptical that those demanding to opt out of a system of taxation will help address the unavoidable problems that less fortunate people in society face [Actually I think the philanthropic instinct is stifled by state action. My perception is that this hasn't yet occurred in the States to anything like the same degree that it has in Yurp, what we see here, after decades of social democratic welfarism is an attitude that "I need not care, because the state will sort it out". Remember about ten years ago that sizzling French summer when 10,000 old folks died of heat in their un-airconditioned apartments? Well it happened in August, France's holiday month, and the unenlightened selfishness of the holidaying offspring of these oldsters (offspring also of the social democratic state) was somewhat distasteful] . "

Prospero

11-06-2012, 11:50 AM

Just watched the clip of Ayn Rand and i think to respond to her racism would hijack this thread away fro the articulate discussion of the role of the state. I'll simply say, in passing that she denounces terrorism by "arabs" (I suspect this was recorded pre-9/11) - while turning a blind eye to arguments that the behaviour of the Israeli state constitutes state terrorism against the Arab people. It can be argued that terrorism might be the only viable response.

an8150

11-06-2012, 01:18 PM

"Just watched the clip of Ayn Rand and i think to respond to her racism would hijack this thread away fro the articulate discussion of the role of the state. I'll simply say, in passing that she denounces terrorism by "arabs" (I suspect this was recorded pre-9/11) - while turning a blind eye to arguments that the behaviour of the Israeli state constitutes state terrorism against the Arab people. It can be argued that terrorism might be the only viable response. "

She would have been speaking at least 20 years before 9/11, Prospero, since she died in 1981. If she was speaking between 1978 (or possibly 1979) and 1981, then the only arab nation not explicitly committed to the annihilation of the Jewish state was Egypt. If she was speaking before 1978-9, then they were all committed to the annihilation of the Jewish state. A number of these other countries had launched wars of aggression in both 1967 and 1973. They got their arses kicked. Tough. You live by that sword, you die by it. The Palestinians who ended up in what are commonly called the occupied territories were shafted by their countries of origin after both wars, not allowed to return. In other cases, they remain in UN-run camps in their countries of origin, but we only ever hear about the Israeli camps. The fact is, the Egyptians and the Jordanians don't want those benighted people (although the West Bankers have recently made a better fist of things than have the Gazans) any more than the Israelis do. The Egyptians have even built their own wall to keep the Gazans out. Again, we only ever hear about the Israeli wall. As for the charge of state-sponsored terrorism, it is spurious. The Palestinian terrorists explicitly and deliberately target civilians, the Israelis do not (with the arguable exception of rogue soldiers).

As for the charge of racism, Rand always said that racism is the oldest form of collectivism, and that she was an individualist. I accept that she is talking in generalities, but then the questioner seemed to invite that. I also accept that her language was either forthright or provocative, depending on your point of view. But in what sense is her description of the arab middle east, and specifically the behaviour of Palestinian terrorists, inaccurate? where does she blame race for the facts as she describes them?

I can see that her description might be unpalatable. But describing the people responsible for, for instance, the atrocity at Munich, as savages (I think that's the word she uses) is in my view scarcely an insult.

Stavros

11-06-2012, 01:23 PM

Stavros, "If you watch this clip from Donahue you may for once admit that Ms Rand does not show much respect for human life when she chooses not to, an extreme form of individualism which is also, as Donahue points out, not very objective from the apostle of objectivism."

I've watched the clip, Stavros. I see nothing in it which demonstrates or implies lack of respect for human life, although Rand is certainly not respectful towards middle eastern arabs. In fact she is disdainful of their societies.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what the last three sub clauses of your comment mean. FWIW I had the sense that the youtube clip had been edited. I've heard of this Donoghue bloke, but never seen him in action. If his conduct in this clip is normal for him, then it follows a pattern familiar to the persecuted minority of libertarians: a witchfinder-general tone of voice, sentences constructed to hector an interlocutor rather than elicit information and comprehension and an indifference either to rational trains of thought or constructive debate. Or maybe the editing of the clip did him a disservice.

I'm happy to disagree with Rand as and when I choose, btw. Honest.

What I meant by what I said is that there was precious little objective about this objectivist's views of the Arabs -is it in her interest to antangonise people whom she believes herself are 'terrorists' and likely to attack her? If she believed that -and she painted the whole of the Arab world with one colour- she was behaving irrationally -the objectivist would maximise individual self-interest, of which getting killed is not one, I assume-thus, in the year of the Camp David agreement, the first peace treaty between the Israelis and the Arabs, she could have recognised that peace is a better option, and worked toward that.

The clip is edited, but you can see the whole of the show on youtube (link below), it is in 5 or six parts and was broadcast in 1979. Donahue was the most articulate, and I think fairest of the talk-show hosts of the US shows we used to get here, superior in tone and interaction to Oprah, Rikki Lake, Geraldo, the woman with glasses whose name I forget, and Springer. Donahue's programmes with transexuals were -as I recall the ones I saw- always resepectful and informative and fun where the others were faux-comical and cheap. He retired I think in the 1990s and of that genre, I think his shows were the best. His remarks to her at the end, are an attempt to offer an alteranative voice to Rand's remarks with opinions the audience had not aired -it is quite common for talk-show hosts to end their programme with a homily anyway.
Ayn Rand on Donahue 1979 (1/5) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx-LpRSbbeA)

Prospero

11-06-2012, 01:23 PM

Very defensive post an8150. VERY aware of the Middle eastern political situation and not as you might construe from my brief post pro-terrorism. But to describe anyone as savages seems racist (even if she sees race as collectivism.) It glides over the bigger political issues incarnated in the Arab-Israeli situation. The brutality of the israelis for instance in the establishment of their nation etc etc.

The massacre at Munich was an appalling crime. Savages is a wrong concept.
I'm not taking a side in that posting.

Stavros

11-06-2012, 01:37 PM

If she was speaking between 1978 (or possibly 1979) and 1981, then the only arab nation not explicitly committed to the annihilation of the Jewish state was Egypt. If she was speaking before 1978-9, then they were all committed to the annihilation of the Jewish state. A number of these other countries had launched wars of aggression in both 1967 and 1973. They got their arses kicked. Tough. You live by that sword, you die by it. The Palestinians who ended up in what are commonly called the occupied territories were shafted by their countries of origin after both wars, not allowed to return. In other cases, they remain in UN-run camps in their countries of origin, but we only ever hear about the Israeli camps. The fact is, the Egyptians and the Jordanians don't want those benighted people (although the West Bankers have recently made a better fist of things than have the Gazans) any more than the Israelis do. The Egyptians have even built their own wall to keep the Gazans out. Again, we only ever hear about the Israeli wall. As for the charge of state-sponsored terrorism, it is spurious. The Palestinian terrorists explicitly and deliberately target civilians, the Israelis do not (with the arguable exception of rogue soldiers).

I can see that her description might be unpalatable. But describing the people responsible for, for instance, the atrocity at Munich, as savages (I think that's the word she uses) is in my view scarcely an insult.

Briefly -you are wrong about the 'annihilation of Israel' -if you set aside the inflammatory rhetoric Middle Eastern states indulge in (incuding Israel, whose represrentatives, even as I speak are talking with the Iranians at the Brussels conference on WMD).
King Abdullah of Jordan was engaged in secret talks with Ben-Gurion and other leaders (including on one occasion a young Golda Meir, much to his embarrassment) shortly after the 1948 war; King Hussein had regular meetings with Israelis (from 1958 onwards) -his obsession was with Jerusalem for historical family reasons and that was always more important to him than the rest of the country, and Jordan was not committed to Israel's 'annihilation' it signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, a year after Israel signed a peace treaty with the PLO, a treaty that was opposed by Ariel Sharon and Bibi Netanyahu and which the latter has done all he can to undermine. You are also not aware of the logistical support that Israel gave to the Royalist and Saudi-backed faction in the war that followed the so-called 'nationalist revolution' in the Yemen in 1962; that it was Israel that invaded the Arab states in 1967 having bombed them in 1966 and conducted numerous brder raids on Jordan and Egypt and so on and so on.

I am not blaming Israel for all the wars, but the history is much more complex as is the fate of the Palestinians, and beyond this thread. Munich was a political act, not the act of savages, and an act that probably did more damage to the Palestinian cause than any other, and remained so until at least the first Intidada in 1988.

an8150

11-06-2012, 02:07 PM

an8150

11-06-2012, 02:10 PM

A defensive post, Prospero? What of it? you made an allegation, I defended the object of that allegation. Necessarily my comments will be defensive. I repeat, so what?

Prospero

11-06-2012, 02:14 PM

allegation? Nope. I offered a brief reference to one line of argument.

an8150

11-06-2012, 02:19 PM

Stavros, "What I meant by what I said is that there was precious little objective about this objectivist's views of the Arabs -is it in her interest to antangonise people whom she believes herself are 'terrorists' and likely to attack her? If she believed that -and she painted the whole of the Arab world with one colour- she was behaving irrationally -the objectivist would maximise individual self-interest, of which getting killed is not one, I assume-thus, in the year of the Camp David agreement, the first peace treaty between the Israelis and the Arabs, she could have recognised that peace is a better option, and worked toward that."

I see. With respect, I think you mean that her choice of language is forthright, colourful, disrespectful, even rude. But unless her facts are wrong, she is not unobjective in using that language.

As to the likelihood of attack on her by terrorists, it's a cute point but it's for her to weigh into the balance the importance to her of telling the truth against the risk of physical violence for doing so.

You're right that she spoke in generalities, but as I've said already, the questioner seemed to invite a geopolitical broad brush.

And anyway, anyone capable of being so antagonised by words that they are prepared to commit homicide as a result of those words is no realistic partner for peace.

an8150

11-06-2012, 02:21 PM

You've lost me, Prospero. You said that Rand was a racist and suggested that the Israeli government committed acts of terrorism.

Are those not allegations?

broncofan

11-06-2012, 05:39 PM

I think the interesting thing is that it only takes a little twist to view what Rand said within the framework of her other views. She believes the Israelis are the enlightened ones, the civilized force, and therefore entitled to whatever they get regardless of how they get it. She views the Palestinians as savages who are essentially murderous and barbarous. It is not tough to see that she like Romney when he spoke about Israeli and Arab culture have hijacked a complex political problem and viewed it through the lens of Rand's nutty philosophy. If you believe like Rand that people who meet a bad end are the authors of their own fate then you have very little room to be appalled by injustices.

an8150- I'm not sure what you would do. The leave it part of that proposition is the whole choice to immigrate. You could navigate the globe looking for undiscovered land to found your own country or try to immigrate to one with a set of rules you find palatable. Tell me, what hellhole looks the most promising:)?

Stavros

11-06-2012, 06:14 PM

If you regard Munich as a "political act" (which is a disgusting evasion), Stavros, then it in your eyes at least it can have done little damage to the Palestinian cause.

Jordan's signing of a peace treaty in 1994, 13 years after Rand's death, does not alter my observations as to the reality when she was speaking.

Indeed, to this day, Israel is the only country I know of which seems to be required to justify its existence.

First of all you did suggest that every Arab state has sought the annihilation of Israel, in spite of the fact that this is not the case with Jordan (or Egypt, or Oman for that matter) and the peace treaty which, it seems, means nothing to you even though it undermines your claim.

Nothing evasive about Munich, if you can't handle the political reality don't dismiss it in compensation for your own incompetence. The bleak truth about Munich is that as an act of violence, it was symptmatic of the disarray that affected the different factions of the PLO as they tried to make sense of their situation following their expulsion from Jordan in 'White' September, 1970. The simple fact was that violence was counter-productive but radical elements in both the PFLP and Fateh were split over its use -in Fateh, Arafat was forced to accept that Israel's retaliation was too high a price to pay for cross-border incursions or attacks on targets overseas, but within Fateh the faction led by Salah Khalef (nom de guerre Au Iyad) disagreed and it was he who organised the Munich operation, part of a broader campaign which as Khalaf put it was 'a strategy adopted by the revolution to eliminate all challenges that prevent us from achieving our victories against the three circles of "Arab reaction, the occupied land [Israel] and American interests" '. In fact, Arafat's position was vindicated when, as a consequence of Munich, Israel bombed 'targets' in Syria and Lebanon -Israel's figures were 200 dead, 40% civilian, the Syrians said it was 300 and 75% civilian. In addition, the Israelis tracked down various people it claimed had been part of the Munich operation and killed them,

In other words, even within the PLO Munich was viewed as a disaster, one of many that had begun after 1967 with the aeroplane hi-jackings and continued with the reckless attempt on King Hussein's life in 1970, 'White'/'Black' September, the expulsion from Jordan, the assassinations -of Prime Minister Wasfi al-Tall in 1971 and various foreign diplomats aborad, the Lod Airpot massacre, and so on.

As for Abu Iyad/Salah Khalaf, a founder member with Arafat of the resistance movement in 1959, and half-Jewish (his mother was a Jew), he was assassinated in Tunis 1991 by an associate of Abu Nidal whom Abu Iyad had told Patrick Seale some years before, was working for the Israelis.

Prospero

11-06-2012, 06:27 PM

You've lost me, Prospero. You said that Rand was a racist and suggested that the Israeli government committed acts of terrorism.

Are those not allegations?

Nope. One is factual. She described Arabs as "savages." Sounds racist to me.

The other i did not assert... i said some would describe it thus....a world of difference;

I said: "while turning a blind eye to arguments that the behaviour of the Israeli state constitutes state terrorism against the Arab people.

an8150

11-06-2012, 06:49 PM

So, Prospero, if I called you a "savage", you'd assume it was a racist slur?

broncofan

11-06-2012, 06:49 PM

There are legitimate arguments to be made that when a state "targets" terrorists and kills five times as many civilians that they benefit from the coercive as well as deterrent effect of the collateral damage. This would make it closer to terrorism and make any distinction a distinction without a difference. Terrorism is killing civilians as targets and benefiting from that coercive effect on the government. But if you target individuals so crudely that the majority of the damage is to civilians and infrastructure, and you can anticipate this in advance, it is plausible to argue the state is engaging in terrorism.

I think Rand's statements are racist, but I think there's a more fundamental problem underlying it. She believes anyone who is in a position of weakness has brought it upon themselves. As someone who has been supportive of Israel I can tell you that Ayn Rand's support is troubling given her views. She must view the Palestinians as the underdogs and the Israelis as the oppressors or she would not be so disdainful of the Palestinians and laudatory of Israeli culture.

I know there are limits to rational self-interest and Rand herself must recognize those limits, but one could just as easily see her respecting terrorists for pursuing a rational strategy. Is terrorism wrong because it leaves innocent victims, or because it is not effective enough? If it is not effective enough, is the solution cooperation, and if so is that the way to a collectivism of sorts?

an8150

11-06-2012, 06:50 PM

broncofan, I'm not sure there is one, although I've heard vaguely promising things about Hungary and (I think) Latvia.

Prospero

11-06-2012, 06:52 PM

So, Prospero, if I called you a "savage", you'd assume it was a racist slur?

No, don't be facetious. But if you said the English or the irish are savages I would. It is fair to characterise the Munich massacre as a savage action carried out by a group of savage people. but not to characterise all Arabs as savages. As you well know.

Would you apply such crass stereotypes to Jews or Black people?

broncofan

11-06-2012, 06:56 PM

So, Prospero, if I called you a "savage", you'd assume it was a racist slur?
What if you said the British were savages? Let's not be naive and remove the context. She was saying Arabs are savages, uniformly, though perhaps not immutably. Does she have to say, "Arabs are savages, and I believe it is racial, that they cannot do anything abou it as they are an inferior ethnic group."

If this were required nothing would be racist. Look at Mel Gibson's claim that "Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." I don't see any mention of it being because Jews are Jewish. He just happens to believe Jews have that culpability. Nothing racist there. Of course it is. The racist never says they hate because of race but some other pretext.

broncofan

11-06-2012, 07:00 PM

broncofan, I'm not sure there is one, although I've heard vaguely promising things about Hungary and (I think) Latvia.
The reason I didn't mention this earlier is because when people say "why don't you just immigrate" it is often derisive or meant to say dissent is not accepted. But it doesn't have to be that way. If there is a country that has laws more consistent with your values, and you can immigrate without too much trouble, it's not a bad option.

an8150

11-06-2012, 07:07 PM

Stavros, "First of all you did suggest that every Arab state has sought the annihilation of Israel [you're right, I did; I'd have been better off saying that Israel was surrounded by states committed to its destruction], in spite of the fact that this is not the case with Jordan (or Egypt [not since Camp David in 1978 or 1979], or Oman for that matter) and the peace treaty which, it seems [the 1994 peace treaty? after Rand's death; I was referring to when she was likely talking], means nothing to you even though it undermines your claim.

Nothing evasive about Munich [I didn't say there was; I said your description of it as a political act was evasive], if you can't handle the political reality don't dismiss it in compensation for your own incompetence [I certainly don't dismiss the Munich atrocity, hence the strength of my reaction to your dismissal of it as akin to a piece of interpretive dance or a letter to a newspaper editor]. The bleak truth about Munich is that as an act of violence, it was symptmatic of the disarray that affected the different factions of the PLO as they tried to make sense of their situation following their expulsion from Jordan in 'White' September, 1970 [evasive claptrap: the bleak truth it that it was an act of murder, slice it where you like]. The simple fact was that violence was counter-productive [not according to you; you categorise it with townhall meetings and million mum marches] but radical elements in both the PFLP and Fateh were split over its use -in Fateh, Arafat was forced to accept that Israel's retaliation was too high a price to pay for cross-border incursions or attacks on targets overseas, but within Fateh the faction led by Salah Khalef (nom de guerre Au Iyad) disagreed and it was he who organised the Munich operation, part of a broader campaign which as Khalaf put it was 'a strategy adopted by the revolution to eliminate all challenges that prevent us from achieving our victories against the three circles of "Arab reaction, the occupied land [Israel] and American interests" '. In fact, Arafat's position was vindicated when, as a consequence of Munich, Israel bombed 'targets' in Syria and Lebanon -Israel's figures were 200 dead, 40% civilian, the Syrians said it was 300 and 75% civilian. In addition, the Israelis tracked down various people it claimed had been part of the Munich operation and killed them,

In other words, even within the PLO Munich was viewed as a disaster, one of many that had begun after 1967 with the aeroplane hi-jackings and continued with the reckless attempt on King Hussein's life in 1970, 'White'/'Black' September, the expulsion from Jordan, the assassinations -of Prime Minister Wasfi al-Tall in 1971 and various foreign diplomats aborad, the Lod Airpot massacre, and so on.

As for Abu Iyad/Salah Khalaf, a founder member with Arafat of the resistance movement in 1959, and half-Jewish (his mother was a Jew), he was assassinated in Tunis 1991 by an associate of Abu Nidal whom Abu Iyad had told Patrick Seale some years before, was working for the Israelis." [nice people, then. not savages]

Prospero

11-06-2012, 07:12 PM

Savage acts deserve to be labelled as such. The perpetrators can be called savages. But not by extension the ethnicity from which they spring. A greedy Jewish man is greedy. But to say all jews are greedy is clearly wrong. A black mugger is a criminal. But to the extrapolate from that... etc etc....

an8150

11-06-2012, 07:22 PM

broncofan

11-06-2012, 07:35 PM

broncofan, "There are legitimate arguments to be made that when a state "targets" terrorists and kills five times as many civilians that they benefit from the coercive as well as deterrent effect of the collateral damage. This would make it closer to terrorism and make any distinction a distinction without a difference [analytically, I think this argument stacks up]. Terrorism is killing civilians as targets and benefiting from that coercive effect on the government. But if you target individuals so crudely that the majority of the damage is to civilians and infrastructure, and you can anticipate this in advance, it is plausible to argue the state is engaging in terrorism [the problem any sovereign state confronted by terrorists has is that they don't wear uniforms, they don't abide by the norms of war as established by the Geneva conventions and they hide among the civilian population, and such populations are sometimes willing assistants].

I think Rand's statements are racist, but I think there's a more fundamental problem underlying it. She believes anyone who is in a position of weakness has brought it upon themselves [no, she doesn't; there are blameless weak characters in her novels, for instance]]. As someone who has been supportive of Israel I can tell you that Ayn Rand's support is troubling given her views. She must view the Palestinians as the underdogs and the Israelis as the oppressors or she would not be so disdainful of the Palestinians and laudatory of Israeli culture [I'm pretty sure she regarded the Israelis as the underdogs].

I know there are limits to rational self-interest [for example?] and Rand herself must recognize those limits, but one could just as easily see her respecting terrorists for pursuing a rational strategy [Ragnar Danneskjold, I think, in Atlas Shrugged, is a pirate, and a hero of the book]. Is terrorism wrong because it leaves innocent victims, or because it is not effective enough? [the deliberate killing of innocents is always wrong; the accidental killing of innocents is a tragedy although, as Rand used to say, motives don't change facts (albeit they might alter moral culpability)]] If it is not effective enough, is the solution cooperation, and if so is that the way to a collectivism of sorts?
Yes, sovereign states face difficulties in combatting terrorists. First, identifying them, then killing them without killing others. Terrorists would argue that poorly armed individuals face problems fighting a sophisticated military armed to the teeth with tanks and planes. Again, terrorism is always wrong. But the problems of combatting terrorism are known to the governments who fight them. They choose given what they view as the costs and benefits to pursue the terrorists into civilian areas and to kill civilians because the terrorists have held these individuals hostage. I'm not saying the terrorists have given them an easy choice, but they've still made that choice, fully informed.

Ayn Rand may believe killing innocents is always wrong, but this is an exception to be carved out of the general proposition that one should pursue their rational self-interest. Now we can amend rational self-interest and fairly say that one should pursue rational self-interest except when doing so harms innocents. But then that would foreclose all sorts of business practices that are in the rational self-interest of entrepreneurs. Not allowing workers to bargain collectively. Signing them up for boilerplate contracts, the terms of which they cannot really alter or negotiate. A take it or leave it sort of contract. You know how unfair that can be:). Once we amend out all of the unsavory consequences of Ayn Rand's philosophy we're left only with a very angry and self-entitled woman.

an8150

11-06-2012, 07:42 PM

broncofan, " Does she have to say, "Arabs are savages, and I believe it is racial, that they cannot do anything abou it as they are an inferior ethnic group." [pretty much, yes; otherwise she's simply making a broadbrush observation about the behaviour of a group of people; absent the claim that their behaviour is racially immutable I see no evidence on which to base an allegation of racism. Her explanation for that behaviour might just as readily derive from conclusions about their culture as their race]

If this were required nothing would be racist . Look at Mel Gibson's claim that "Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." I don't see any mention of it being because Jews are Jewish. He just happens to believe Jews have that culpability. Nothing racist there. Of course it is [Personally I think Gibson's remark is primarily very stupid. Secondarily, it may be that as a Catholic he has some ancient anti-semitic grievances. But I see nothing in his remark which says that Jews are responsible for all the wars bcause of their race. Remember also that he was very drunk when he said that, so not exactly mincing his words. And I think there's a difference between his remarks and Rand's in that, as I say, his are merely stupid, whereas hers, though broad brush, are not without foundation. The arab world [I]is largely a cesspit and not a nice place to live and has been thus for a long time]. The racist never says they hate because of race but some other pretext [if they're racist, why not? I would. Actually, that's niaive of me. I can see why racism has been driven underground, but I still think you chaps need more to go on before you start throwing the allegation around. Quite aside from anything else, it's a very boring allegation whose force is diminished when it turns out to be true]."

an8150

11-06-2012, 07:47 PM

Prospero, "Savage acts deserve to be labelled as such. The perpetrators can be called savages. But not by extension the ethnicity from which they spring. A greedy Jewish man is greedy. But to say all jews are greedy is clearly wrong. A black mugger is a criminal. But to the extrapolate from that... etc etc.... "

That's a better argument, I'd agree. And yet, for the umpteenth time, she's asked for a geopolitical observation, and she gives it. Sorry, but I've read too much of her work, fiction and non-fiction, to believe that, had a follow up question been asked to the effect of, "are they savages because they're arabs?" she would have answered "yes". And as we've seen, she's not afraid of saying things that offend or outrage where that is what she believes.

an8150

11-06-2012, 07:51 PM

Prospero, "No, don't be facetious. But if you said the English or the irish are savages I would [aren't you making the rather unusual assumption that the English, for example, are white, or at least racially homogenous?]. It is fair to characterise the Munich massacre as a savage action carried out by a group of savage people. but not to characterise all Arabs as savages. As you well know.

Would you apply such crass stereotypes to Jews or Black people?" [I'd certainly be willing to venture generalisations - about Jewish mums, for example, or Jamaican yardie culture]

an8150

11-06-2012, 07:54 PM

broncofan, "The reason I didn't mention this earlier is because when people say "why don't you just immigrate" it is often derisive or meant to say dissent is not accepted. But it doesn't have to be that way. If there is a country that has laws more consistent with your values, and you can immigrate without too much trouble, it's not a bad option. "

In principle, no. In reality (although I haven't looked too closely at either Hungary or Latvia), whether the gains are worth the candle is another matter. The western disease of social democracy has its claws into much of the rest of the world.

Prospero

11-06-2012, 08:01 PM

You are being particularly obtuse - for i suspect youdislike racial or cultural stereotypes as much as i do. No Im talking about stereotyping one group - and of course the English are no racially homogenous. But I would LOVE to see your generalisations about "jewish mums"

an8150

11-06-2012, 08:06 PM

broncofan, "Ayn Rand may believe killing innocents is always wrong, but this is an exception to be carved out of the general proposition that one should pursue their rational self-interest [you're saying it is sometimes in one's rational self interest to kill innocents? The only such situation I can think of is being shipwrecked with another man, lacking food, and it occurs to me to kill him for food; in the abstract I certainly wouldn't advocate that course of action. I don't know what Rand would say]. Now we can amend rational self-interest and fairly say that one should pursue rational self-interest except when doing so harms innocents [an objectivist would say that A looks out for his interests and assumes B does likewise. If A is correct in that assumption, then both are happy]. But then that would foreclose all sorts of business practices that are in the rational self-interest of entrepreneurs. Not allowing workers to bargain collectively [I previously argued in this thread in favour of freedom of association and I see no reason to depart from that when trades unions come up. Rand had no problem with them either, at least not in principle. Most entrepreneurs are not objectivists. Many don't even like free markets]. Signing them up for boilerplate contracts, the terms of which they cannot really alter or negotiate. A take it or leave it sort of contract. You know how unfair that can be [if the worker doesn't wish to accept the terms, he doesn't have to. If he does so because he wants the job, then he's concluded applying his own rational self interest that he is better off with the job and the terms he doesn't like than without said job; he's applied exactly the same criterion as the employer.]. Once we amend out all of the unsavory consequences of Ayn Rand's philosophy we're left only with a very angry and self-entitled woman [to repeat: you're confusing Rand and objectivists with entrepreneurs; they are rarely the same thing]. "

an8150

11-06-2012, 08:08 PM

If I'm being obtuse, Prospero, will you do me the courtesy of explaining why or in what sense?

broncofan

11-06-2012, 08:19 PM

You acknowledge that racism has been driven underground. So, there is your reason why someone who believes Arabs are inferior and wants to impart that ethic would say they're savages and not be more explicit about it. I have never heard anyone make a statement with the specificity you would require to have it be racist.

Now Mel Gibson may not have been mincing his words, so why did he not say Jews cause all wars because they're Jewish? He didn't think he had to. He could impart his meaning that Jews are bad apples without saying they have no choice in the matter. In fact, if he believes they are immutably evil, but wanted to condemn them in a way that imparts maximum damage he could pitch the idea that they choose to be evil. Again, his statements were descriptively wrong but part of racism is believing a group is in some way corrupt even if you aren't clear about the causes.

Do you think those on the hard right that claim homosexuals choose to be gay actually believe it? My guess is they don't care but are trying to inflict damage to homosexuals by pretending it is a choice and therefore within the realm of morality.

Anyhow, you're acting as though I am a smear merchant for condemning the statement as racist. I was just trying to be objective about it. I even said above I think her problem is more fundamental than racism, and that her racism is a symptom of her broader philosophy.

an8150

11-06-2012, 08:39 PM

broncofan, "You acknowledge that racism has been driven underground. So, there is your reason why someone who believes Arabs are inferior and wants to impart that ethic would say they're savages and not be more explicit about it. I have never heard anyone make a statement with the specificity you would require to have it be racist [I have, but I agree it is rare, which is one reason why I think racism is rarer than you might think... I think the explanation people would just as readily put forward is culturalist; my conclusions on this are unsupported by anything other than personal observation; it seems to me that the most one might rationally say of the claim that "arabs are savages" is that it creates a rebuttable presumption that the speaker is racist or culturalist. Rand, as I think we all agree, is quite happy to speak in provocative terms. I have little doubt that did she blame Arabs as Arabs for savagery then she would be quite as home saying so]

Now Mel Gibson may not have been mincing his words, so why did he not say Jews cause all wars because they're Jewish? He didn't think he had to [yes, for sure, or maybe he was just drunk and stupid]. He could impart his meaning that Jews are bad apples without saying they have no choice in the matter [while I think your example of Gibson's rant is helpful, his rant is also too stupid and drunk to merit serious analysis]. In fact, if he believes they are immutably evil, but wanted to condemn them in a way that imparts maximum damage he could pitch the idea that they choose to be evil. Again, his statements were descriptively wrong but part of racism is believing a group is in some way corrupt even if you aren't clear about the causes [I think you're wrong there. If you're a racist, you believe that a particular race is in some way inferior specifically because it is inherent to that race].

Do you think those on the hard right that claim homosexuals choose to be gay actually believe it? [Probably, they do, yes, very few people go through life wondering how to be, act and say things that are deliberately wicked or mischievous. Most people believe what they believe because it is central to their conception of themselves as good, or nice] My guess is they don't care but are trying to inflict damage to homosexuals by pretending it is a choice and therefore within the realm of morality [Having said the forgoing, I wouldn't in the example you give, discount the possibility of a certain mischievous malice among the critics you've identified, which they may justify to themselves as being in the best interests of those they castigate].

Anyhow, you're acting as though I am a smear merchant for condemning the statement as racist [I've enjoyed corresponding with you, broncofan, I apologise if I caused offence, but I think you're wrong on your analysis of Rand and I think self-styled progressives are too quick to bring the charge of racism]. I was just trying to be objective about it. I even said above I think her problem is more fundamental than racism, and that her racism is a symptom of her broader philosophy [whether or not you think she personally was a racist, you surely agree that she was an individualist and that her characterisation of racism as the oldest form of collectivism is spot on, so to associate her broader philosophy with racism is spurious]."

Prospero

11-06-2012, 08:47 PM

No - please offer me your stereotypes about Jewish mothers first....

an8150

11-06-2012, 09:07 PM

Ok, only slightly tongue in-cheek: fussy, neurotic, niggly, smothering their sons, constantly worrying...

Happy now?

Prospero

11-06-2012, 10:22 PM

ha ha.... are you a smothered Jewish son then?

an8150

11-06-2012, 11:49 PM

Me? No, WASP to the core.

Now, as to that obtuseness...

broncofan

11-06-2012, 11:49 PM

Ok, only slightly tongue in-cheek: fussy, neurotic, niggly, smothering their sons, constantly worrying...

Happy now?
As a Jewish son, this list almost makes me want to be a Libertarian. So, is the state a fussy, smothering mom. Are we talking Fran Drescher or Barbra Streisand? :-)

Oy an8150, you have to pay your taxes. How come you never call your mother on tax day? Haven't you ever heard of a civic duty? I wish I never named you an8150, it's such a gentile name. How can you grow up and be a Rabbi with a name like an8150? Oy, I think I'm developing a cold.

You see these stereotypes are relatively harmless though. Not all are you know? ;

broncofan

11-07-2012, 12:03 AM

I've enjoyed corresponding with you, broncofan, I apologise if I caused offence, but I think you're wrong on your analysis of Rand and I think self-styled progressives are too quick to bring the charge of racism]."
You haven't caused offense. I gave you your only positive votes in here:). I thought you brought up some good points. I didn't want to go into what I think would be the failings of the private litigation system in lieu of more formal regulation so I ignored it and gave you a thumbs up. Some good points in that post. There are enforcement problems when you use litigation, particularly torts such as negligence because you encourage willful blindness. Negligence does ask what an individual "should have done" but it does not typically charge them with doing independent research to ensure safety, but asks this question respecting generally available information. So strict liability might be the ticket. But then you only have enforcement after damage is done and companies could set aside a slush fund to essentially pay for the lives of those injured by their products. Prevention is preferable.

You also have detection problems as without the advance research into drugs and products you might not detect risks that could take decades to develop in people. You might not detect them anyway, but I think if businesses only had disgorgement of profits as a consequence you'd see all sorts of reckless behavior. Maybe heightened criminal liability for corporate actors, but again, criminal law doesn't typically require you to ferret out risks, only not to take malevolent action. So, anyhow, good points. Not saying litigation wouldn't work to keep businesses in line but it might be cumbersome to enforce on a case by case basis. Cheers.

Stavros

11-07-2012, 12:15 AM

[QUOTE=an8150;1231551]
I'd have been better off saying that Israel was surrounded by states committed to its destruction], in spite of the fact that this is not the case with Jordan (or Egypt [not since Camp David in 1978 or 1979]

--the Treaty still stands, it has not been violated by Egypt.

Nothing evasive about Munich [I didn't say there was; I said your description of it as a political act was evasive], if you can't handle the political reality don't dismiss it in compensation for your own incompetence [I certainly don't dismiss the Munich atrocity, hence the strength of my reaction to your dismissal of it as akin to a piece of interpretive dance or a letter to a newspaper editor]. The bleak truth about Munich is that as an act of violence, it was symptmatic of the disarray that affected the different factions of the PLO as they tried to make sense of their situation following their expulsion from Jordan in 'White' September, 1970 [evasive claptrap: the bleak truth it that it was an act of murder, slice it where you like]. The simple fact was that violence was counter-productive [not according to you; you categorise it with townhall meetings and million mum marches]

-I don't understand your response: far from being evasive about any aspect of the Munich incident, I was trying to explain it to you in the context in which it developed and took place -that it was an atrocity is not in doubt -the issue is why it happened and what it tells you about the role violence had played in Palestinian politics up to that point, and why it was in this period in the early 1970s that Arafat had difficulty controlling those elements even in his own group, Fateh, who wanted to continue the armed struggle when others wanted to call a halt to it. None of this is 'elusive claptrap' because it was central to the whole trajectory of Palestinian politics at the time; and I thought I was emphatic in describing the violence committed by Palestinian groups as counter-productive -what you are referring to in 'townhall meetings and million mum marches' is beyond me, but you are free to import any weird ideas you have.

I suspect you are not that interested in the history anyway, that you have decided there are good guys and bad guys, that the bad guys lost and should 'go away' somewhere. That doesn't deal with the issues the people who live in the Middle East must cope with every day; nor does it unravel the many different strands of politics that interweave across the region. Ay Rand showed no interest in the history or the politics of the region, she had a decisive view of one set of people rather than another, in spite of the fact that many Israelis then and now have sought a closer and more peaceful relationship with the Palestinians in particular and the Arabs in general. There is a lot more to Israel than Ayn Rand or Netanyahu, and much of it is more positive and accommodating of change than you appear to be.

an8150

11-07-2012, 12:32 AM

Stavros, " There is a lot more to Israel than Ayn Rand or Netanyahu, and much of it is more positive and accommodating of change than you appear to be."

I agree. And talking of goodies and baddies, nice guys and savages, there are palestinian israelis and palestinian members of the knesset. On the other hand, a jew who sets foot in Gaza is toast.

And you're right, I'm not interested in the personal or political histories of murderers where those histories are used for mealy-mouthed equivocation over the precise nature of the murderous act.

A townhall meeting is a political act. As is a letter to a newspaper, or a million mum march (and I forget my other erstwhile example). Wearing a GOP pin badge or a "support Obama" bumper sticker is a political act. Murdering athletes is not a "political act". It's an act of murder. It is among the most wicked of all human behaviour, and your circumlocutions on the subject reveal a moral vacuum.

an8150

11-07-2012, 12:35 AM

broncofan, I hadn't noticed that I had any positive votes. I'm probably too used to revelling in my role as a victimised minarchist. But thank you.

Prospero

11-07-2012, 12:37 AM

Victimised ROFL.... you are the one with a hatred of the disease of liberal democracy.

an8150

11-07-2012, 12:40 AM

That's a non sequitur, Prospero.

Prospero

11-07-2012, 12:42 AM

so what... just as no one forces you to post here no one is forcing me to .. well whatever.. too tired to deal with your tiresome and wholly unrealistic and utopian nonsense. You DO realise that you are on a highway to nowhere...

an8150

11-07-2012, 12:49 AM

The highway to nowhere? Yes, that'd be utopia. I'll assume you intended the pun.

Still, look on the bright side: you've learned about fascism, objectivism, the coercive nature of state action and minarchism.

Ben

11-07-2012, 04:37 AM

Election Day Perspective: 6 Things to Keep in Mind:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/election-day-perspective-6-things-to-keep-in-mind/264590/

danthepoetman

11-07-2012, 09:30 AM

Well, congratulations to you, Americans, on your last democratic exercise...

Democracy
Leonard Cohen

It's coming through a hole in the air,
from those nights in Tiananmen Square.
It's coming from the feel
that it ain't exactly real,
or it's real, but it ain't exactly there.
From the wars against disorder,
from the sirens night and day,
from the fires of the homeless,
from the ashes of the gay:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

It's coming through a crack in the wall,
on a visionary flood of alcohol;
from the staggering account
of the Sermon on the Mount
which I don't pretend to understand at all.
It's coming from the silence
on the dock of the bay,
from the brave, the bold, the battered
heart of Chevrolet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

It's coming from the sorrow on the street
the holy places where the races meet;
from the homicidal bitchin'
that goes down in every kitchen
to determine who will serve and who will eat.
From the wells of disappointment
where the women kneel to pray
for the grace of G-d in the desert here
and the desert far away:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Sail on, sail on
o mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
past the Reefs of Greed
through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on

It's coming to America first,
the cradle of the best and the worst.
It's here they got the range
and the machinery for change
and it's here they got the spiritual thirst.
It's here the family's broken
and it's here the lonely say
that the heart has got to open
in a fundamental way:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

It's coming from the women and the men.
O baby, we'll be making love again.
We'll be going down so deep
that the river's going to weep,
and the mountain's going to shout Amen!
It's coming to the tidal flood
beneath the lunar sway,
imperial, mysterious
in amorous array:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Sail on, sail on
o mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
past the Reefs of Greed
through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on

I'm sentimental if you know what I mean:
I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I'm junk but I'm still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Prospero

11-07-2012, 10:08 AM

Congrats to the USA.... but there is hard work and there are hard years ahead

Stavros

11-07-2012, 11:28 AM

[QUOTE=an8150;1231734]Stavros, " There is a lot more to Israel than Ayn Rand or Netanyahu, and much of it is more positive and accommodating of change than you appear to be."

I agree. And talking of goodies and baddies, nice guys and savages, there are palestinian israelis and palestinian members of the knesset. On the other hand, a jew who sets foot in Gaza is toast.

-And as I am sure you are aware, Arab Israelis are second class citizens in Israel, their mosques and churches have been set ablaze by fanatics, mostly settlers crossing the border to commit these crimes, and of course Israel's occupation of the West Bank is illegal, as are the settlements there.
-You will also be aware that HAMAS, which was promoted by the Israelis in 1988-89, has more than once offered to negotiate and work with Israel. It is the government of Benjamin Netanyahu that has consistently worked to undermine the Oslo Accords.

And you're right, I'm not interested in the personal or political histories of murderers where those histories are used for mealy-mouthed equivocation over the precise nature of the murderous act.
A townhall meeting is a political act. As is a letter to a newspaper, or a million mum march (and I forget my other erstwhile example). Wearing a GOP pin badge or a "support Obama" bumper sticker is a political act. Murdering athletes is not a "political act". It's an act of murder. It is among the most wicked of all human behaviour, and your circumlocutions on the subject reveal a moral vacuum.
-I don't know what 'townhall meetings you are referring to in the context of Munich, and I don't know what a million mum march refers to either.
My attempt to provide you with an historical context was not mealy-mouthed, the language and reasoning I used was simple and clear; it was not an equivocation as I took a clear moral stand: Munich was a crime, and as a political act considered counter-productive by Arafat and his closest associates in Fateh, except of course for Abu Iyad, who in spite of Munich offered to negotiate a two-state deal with the Israelis.

The issue is not me making these comments in a moral vacuum, but you creating one by first stripping out the whole of the context and reducing all comment on the conflict between Israel and Palestine to violent acts. This suggests it doesn't matter to you if the Provisional IRA had a political agenda in the 1970s and 1980s, and that the same was true of say, the Brigate Rosse in Italy at the time; but also suggests that the Irgun who bombed the King David Hotel in Jersusalem in 1946 cannot be seen as political activists, but as murderers, which means that when, every year, Netanyahu takes part in the celebrations of this crime, he is celebrating murder, and not just the murder of British soldiers, of Arabs, but also of the Jews were who killed on that day.

King David Hotel, 1946; Munich 1972: what's the difference?

Or it could be that I have misunderstood you, and that you are a pacificst and condemn all forms of killing, with no regard to the cause.

trish

11-07-2012, 05:08 PM

... Still, look on the bright side: you've learned about fascism, objectivism, the coercive nature of state action and minarchism.

We learned that the actions of a people who are engaged in democratic self-rule are, by definition, self-willed actions and by definition not coercive. The self-willed actions of a democracy are no more coercive than your self-willed action to play a game of gin-rummy and adhere to the rules. The self-willed actions of a democracy are no more coercive than your self-willed action to post in this thread and follow the rules of grammar at least to the extent as to make yourself understood. By participating in the democracy, by playing the game, by posting on this thread you have already agreed to the respective rules and agreed to the penalites for not following them.

We learned that neither liberty nor property exist if they are not recognized and respected by those around you. They are man-made notions; neither god given nor woven into the fabric of the universe.

We learned that when interpreted literally rational self-interest is too narrow a notion from which to derive the notions of liberty and property; that when interpreted more broadly rational self-interest is too weak a notion to support and guarantee liberty and property.

an8150

11-08-2012, 02:23 AM

Stavros, "but also suggests that the Irgun who bombed the King David Hotel in Jersusalem in 1946 cannot be seen as political activists, but as murderers, which means that when, every year, Netanyahu takes part in the celebrations of this crime, he is celebrating murder, and not just the murder of British soldiers, of Arabs, but also of the Jews were who killed on that day.

King David Hotel, 1946; Munich 1972: what's the difference?"

Answer: none.

an8150

11-08-2012, 02:45 AM

trish, "We learned that the actions of a people who are engaged in democratic self-rule are, by definition, self-willed actions and by definition not coercive that were true, there would be no point in anyone at all voting] . The self-willed actions of a democracy [in the context in which you use the word, a democracy is an abstract, no more capable of will than is a religion] are no more coercive than your self-willed action to play a game of gin-rummy and adhere to the rules [except I can't be prosecuted and thrown into prison for failing to follow the rules of gin rummy. The clue is in the word: coercion. It means to be forced physically to do something]. The self-willed actions of a democracy are no more coercive than your self-willed action to post in this thread and follow the rules of grammar at least to the extent as to make yourself understood [this is no more true than your observations on gin rummy]. By participating in the democracy [I use the roads because I have to to, not as an endorsement of their funding by the state; if the state licensed breathing, and I bought a breathing license, am I endorsing state licensing of breathing?], by playing the game, by posting on this thread [this thread, this forum, btw, is a paragon of libertarian principle ; it follows that this forum has no point of similarity with a democracy of the type under discussion] you have already agreed to the respective rules and agreed to the penalites for not following them [you mean I can be thrown in prison and be dispossessed of my property if I upset the wrong person on this forum?].

We learned that neither liberty nor property exist if they are not recognized and respected by those around you [they can, but I suspect you're confusing law enforcement with the convenience afforded by one's neighbour not smashing one's windows]. They are man-made notions [I agree, but what of it?]; neither god given nor woven into the fabric of the universe [I haven't suggested that either is the case].

We learned that when interpreted literally rational self-interest is too narrow a notion from which to derive the notions of liberty and property [here, I can't even guess what aspect of the thread you're referring to]; that when interpreted more broadly rational self-interest is too weak a notion to support and guarantee liberty and property [ditto, with bells on!]."

Ben

11-08-2012, 03:38 AM

Justice Party's Rocky Anderson: Change the Way We Vote| Think Tank - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSd6PXNLkLo&feature=plcp)

Ben

11-08-2012, 03:41 AM

A good sign for so-called democracy -- :)

Early figures show fewer Americans cast votes in 2012 race than in 2008

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Early+figures+show+fewer+Americans+cast+votes+2012 +race+than+2008/7510892/story.html

trish

11-08-2012, 03:48 AM

Yes the clue is in the word coercion and most people live happy lives; they obey the traffic laws, pay their taxes etc. and are never physically forced by the government to do anything. (And if you cheat at gin rummy with the wrong people you may find there are consequences you'd rather not pay).

an8150

11-08-2012, 03:58 AM

hippifried

11-08-2012, 04:27 AM

Every action has a reaction. Everything you do touches someone else. There are consequences to everything you do, & there's no such thing as a right to impunity. You can refuse to pay your taxes. No problem. Just don't snivel about the consequence that you already know is near certain. Go hang out by Walden Pond & think about it.

trish

11-08-2012, 04:30 AM

Do you think people proudly perform their duties only out of fear of the authorities, or only for a paycheck? Then how do we get by with an underpaid volunteer military? But don't be facetious, the law is there to take care of unmotivated freeloaders.

Odelay

11-08-2012, 04:41 AM

trish, "Yes the clue is in the word coercion and most people live happy lives; they obey the traffic laws, pay their taxes etc. and are never physically forced by the government to do anything [you mean they would do all these things regardless of whether failing to do them was a criminal act? you say, then, for instance that people would pay the same tax as they do now even if not required by law to do so? if you're right, why is law needed to make people pay that tax?]. ... "

I think we've got to the heart of the matter.
Jesus, these people who constantly complain about taxes are the most boring people in the country. Operative word: constantly. I don't mind someone making a reasoned argument against taxation or for less taxes, but most of these people are just tedious because they never stop. Something about feeling that they're clever or charming or something by repeating themselves.

trish

11-08-2012, 04:48 AM

They act like they have a fundamental right to freeload on the labor of others. When you explain their rights are granted by the very people they would cheat against they even agree yet continue to repeat their claim ad nauseum.

Ben

11-08-2012, 07:03 AM

Paul Craig Roberts: The Game is Rigged! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tOH6-yO09s&feature=plcp)

an8150

11-08-2012, 10:26 AM

"...these people who constantly complain about taxes... "

Actually I'm complaining about coercion. The taxes, are a secondary point.

On your broader point, Odelay, you sound like you're channelling Marie Antionette: why don't these peasant ever stop complaining!?

an8150

11-08-2012, 10:46 AM

hipifried, "Every action has a reaction [if you say so. my reaction to being coerced is to complain about it which, under the circumstances, is remarkably well-behaved of me]. Everything you do touches someone else [meaningless drivel and also untrue]. There are consequences to everything you do, & there's no such thing as a right to impunity [what are you talking about?]. You can refuse to pay your taxes. No problem. Just don't snivel about the consequence that you already know is near certain [I can refuse to do as i am ordered, but I shouldn't complain if my bosses wreck my life as a result? you are talking like a slave]. Go hang out by Walden Pond & think about it. "

an8150

11-08-2012, 11:00 AM

trish, "Do you think people proudly perform their duties [duties? duties? what duty do I owe you?]only out of fear of the authorities [if they don't, why is coercive law needed to make people buy driving licenses and pay taxes?], or only for a paycheck? Then how do we get by with an underpaid volunteer military? [American military spending is larger than that of, I think, the next ten countries combined, and 40% of the world's military spending. And you don't get by on it. When did you last win a war?] But don't be facetious, the law is there to take care of unmotivated freeloaders [you sound like a cross between an enforcer for the mob and a Soviet commissar threatening beatings until moral improves]."

an8150

11-08-2012, 11:06 AM

trish, "They act like they have a fundamental right to freeload on the labor of others [you're the one demanding I fulfill my supposed duty to you by paying you money; if anyone is freeloading, it's you, demanding the fruits of my labour]. When you explain their rights are granted [liberties are taken, they are not given; to think otherwise is the creed of slaves] by the very people they would cheat against they even agree yet continue to repeat their claim ad nauseum. "

I can hardly believe I am corresponding with Americans.

Prospero

11-08-2012, 11:20 AM

And I can hardly credit your absurd use of the word slave in so many of your posts and your obsession with coercion as - which you seem to see, in your constant return to it - the worst crime that can be committed. What you see as coercion i see as a mutually agreed system of co-operation. Then in an otherwise civilised discussion with Trish you suddenly accuse of her of talking like Soviet commissar or mafia enforcer.

Your political philosphy is based on a naivety about human nature. Of course a very large number - dare i speculate on it being a majority - of people will not pay tax given the chance. Most of us are in many respects selfish and given the chance,will keep the money. We need a government, a structure, to safeguard us from all kinds of things - to take concerted action on climate change, to limit the greed of massive corporations, to protect the rights of the weaker in society etc etc.

I take it you do not believe in society?

That many Governments have failed to do as well as one would hope is no argument to support your curious notion of vitually no Government at all or no taxes.

If you are british i assume you are opposed fundamentally to the NHS, to state funding of education, to the provision of an old age pension for those who require it and for much more that makes us a relatively ciilised society.

Yes i did intend my reference to the road to nowhere and utopia to chime together. Utopia is of course nowhere and your political philosophy has as much chance of playing out in any way in the real world as seals do of attaining a professorship at Yale. I wholly support your freedom to cleave to these absurdities, to argue for them and indeed to apply them to your own life. But you do so knowing the potential legal outcome. Thanks.

an8150

11-08-2012, 12:50 PM

Prospero,"And I can hardly credit your absurd use of the word slave in so many of your posts and your obsession with coercion as - which you seem to see, in your constant return to it - the worst crime that can be committed . What you see as coercion i see as a mutually agreed system of co-operation [if it were mutually-agreed, there'd be no need for coercive law to back it up; what you're describing is a co-operative society on the Victorian model. Nothing wrong with that model, I can see that it makes plenty of sense to some people in some circumstances. But I say there is a key moral distinction between between voluntary action and coerced action]. Then in an otherwise civilised discussion with Trish you suddenly accuse of her of talking like Soviet commissar or mafia enforcer [Oh, come off it! I've been on the receiving end of gratuitous smears throughout this thread. My description of trish at least has the merit of a relationship to reality].

Your political philosphy is based on a naivety about human nature [Not in the slightest, I'm quite content with human selfishness when practised voluntarily, I see nothing wrong with it and indeed celebrate it]. Of course a very large number - dare i speculate on it being a majority - of people will not pay tax given the chance [and there we have it: who are you to say that people should not be given the chance? Can you hear how monstrously arrogant it is to rejoice in a system that denies people their nature?]. Most of us are in many respects selfish and given the chance,will keep the money [good for us]. We need a government [to a very limited extent, I agree], a structure ][you can't structure your life without a government? such pathos!], to safeguard us from all kinds of things - to take concerted action on climate change, to limit the greed of massive corporations, to protect the rights of the weaker in society etc etc. [btw, why aren't you greedy for demanding the fruits of other people's labour?]

I take it you do not believe in society? [do I believe it exists as a tangible reality? no, it's an abstract concept, but a useful one in describing the world around us]

That many Governments have failed to do as well as one would hope is no argument to support your curious notion of vitually no Government at all or no taxes [I haven't made the argument from government incompetence, that's a pragmatic argument and we're still in the foothills of principle].

If you are british i assume you are opposed fundamentally to the NHS, to state funding of education, to the provision of an old age pension [yes, to all] for those who require it [require? if someone hasn't provided for his retirement, why should he retire?] and for much more that makes us a relatively ciilised society [in fact I say welfare has made us less civilised, less caring, less willing to participate in civic endeavour and more brutish].

Yes i did intend my reference to the road to nowhere and utopia to chime together. Utopia is of course nowhere and your political philosophy has as much chance of playing out in any way in the real world as seals do of attaining a professorship at Yale [as a matter of electoral politics, I agree; quite aside from anything else, social democracy creates a massive dependent client state, which isn't going to vote for an end to its freebies . On the other hand, when social democracy bankrupts itself, we'll see what emerges from the ashes. In Greece, Spain and Italy, history is on the side of military dictatorship. In the Anglospere, all bets are off]. I wholly support your freedom to cleave to these absurdities, to argue for them and indeed to apply them to your own life. But you do so knowing the potential legal outcome [indeed I do. Hence my complaint about coercion. At root, you are a theocrat. You say, "I know what's morally best and everybody should be compelled to act accordingly". Most people agree with you on the compulsion part. The problem is, you theocrats don't all agree on what's morally best and, as I've pointed out, once you've sold the pass on compulsion, or coercion, you left with no argument to confront those theocrats who'd use it against that which you hold dear. If you think providing someone else with free healthcare is the civilised thing to do, then in my view you should be free to provide that healthcare. What you should not have is the power to compel or coerce my assistance. I'm quite capable of making my own moral choices. And after all, that the essence of morality, that we [I]choose to do what's right]. Thanks. "

Prospero

11-08-2012, 12:57 PM

Atomistic nonsense. Your ideas which, very thankfully, will never be played out in the real world in my lifetime (or yours) would lead to the collapse of our slight civilisation.

Either you live in society or out of it.

Go live in a commune with your foolish friends.

No distinction between a mugger and the state. Trite.

A theocrat. Ludicrous.

Prospero

11-08-2012, 01:21 PM

Looking again at your last post, it is clear that yours is a philosophy of the utmost selfishness. Your remarks on retirement for instance. "If they cannot afford to retire, then don't retire." Piffle. Many would choose not o retire but that choice is removed - including by reasons of illness. Old age, a lifetime of working, illness, weakness and an working world that boots the older out for many reasons, but often because it is is cheaper to employ younger people. All of these argue for a safety net provided by the state because the selfish -who you celebrate - will not do it.

Onc again we fall back on the weak deserve to go to the wall. Those of us who have property, vast wealth etc - often founded on complex factors including the exploitation of the weak and less intelligent - deserve to keep it all. Not to participate in helping the weak, the old, the poor, the sick etc - except that we choose to do it entirely from our own free will without societal structure which require us to be concerned about our fellow men and women (whose energy and industriousness we benefit from) How have your laissez faire notions worked in the eras before the 20th century. Not so well.

And regarding co-ercian your minarchist world is right to co-erce us to pay for defence? Yet that is one area where, given a choice, many would NOT see their money spent. So are they allowed to opt out? or would co-ercian be okay here?

And notions of defence need to be discussed surely? Do you mean external enemies? Do you mean terrorists? Do you mean criminals ? Those who would prey on the weak, the old, the defenceless? Muggers/ Rapists? Child abusers? THose behind honour killings? Gangs who would run riot without police to safeguard us against those they rob, rape and kill? How will that work in you minarchist world? What about protection against those greedy people who will play with the funds in the city - and lose their companies and investors billions of pounds or dollars unless rules exist (and rules perhaps better enforced than now). Rules of hygiene enforced by law in hospitals and places where we go to eat? Or are restaurants yhat have cockroaches and rats running around be okay in a Minarchist world rather than having rules which compel them to pay attention to regulations about hygiene and safety? Why not let children work as chimney sweeps again or spend their childhoods down in the darkness of the mines? Hospitals with rats in operating theatre and where you can only go anyway if you can afford to pay? Airlines not rquired to obey safety regulations. Or trains drivers. I could go on - but i think you get the picture. Do you really believe that human nature will prevail and give us all a nice harmonious world? Or would we return to a world where life was nasty, brutish and short for all but the most privileged?

an8150

11-08-2012, 01:32 PM

"Atomistic nonsense. Your ideas which, very thankfully, will never be played out in the real world in my lifetime (or yours) would lead to the collapse of our slight civilisation.

Either you live in society or out of it.

Go live in a commune with your foolish friends.

No distinction between a mugger and the state. Trite.

A theocrat. Ludicrous. "

Those aren't arguments, Prospero.

Prospero

11-08-2012, 01:39 PM

No they're judgements. Read my later post.

an8150

11-08-2012, 02:00 PM

Prospero, "Looking again at your last post, it is clear that yours is a philosophy of the utmost selfishness [yes, as I've been saying; but then so are yours, the moral distance between us is not that in gratification of those things you want you are different from me, it is that in gratification of the things you want you are prepared to force me to provide them. I, on the other hand, wanting the things that I do, am prepared to work for them myself or do without] . Your remarks on retirement for instance. "If they cannot afford to retire, then don't retire." Piffle. Many would choose not o retire but that choice is removed - including by reasons of illness [I expect to have to work until I die. In the abstract I don't complain about that. There is no reason why anybody else should be compelled to support me]. Old age, a lifetime of working, illness, weakness and an working world that boots the older out for many reasons, but often because it is is cheaper to employ younger people. All of these argue for a safety net provided by the state because the selfish -who you celebrate - will not do it [who says I wouldn't? I haven't. And in meritorious cases, where I could afford to assist, then I may well be prepared voluntarily to assist. What I've said is I do not wish to be compelled to do so].

Onc again we fall back on the weak deserve to go to the wall [I've never said that. As it happens that occurs, and arguably but counterfactually to a greater extent, even under a comprehensive welfare state]. Those of us [us? speak for yourself. I realise of course that self-styled progressives are often among the wealthiest but by reinforcing this image you underscore my earlier points about the arrogance of your claims as against the poor peasants who revolt against them] who have property, vast wealth etc - often founded on complex factors including the exploitation of the weak and less intelligent - deserve to keep it all. Not to participate in helping the weak, the old, the poor, the sick etc - except that we choose to do it entirely from our own free will without societal structure which require us to be concerned about our fellow men and women (whose energy and industriousness we benefit from) [again, you're speaking for yourself, Prospero. I'm quite capable of experiencing concern for my fellow man without the state forcing me to it] How have your laissez faire notions worked in the eras before the 20th century [laissez faire hasn't existed in Britain, although I concede that at points in the past we were freer in some respects]. Not so well.

And regarding co-ercian your minarchist world is right to co-erce us to pay for defence? Yet that is one area where, given a choice, many would NOT see their money spent. So are they allowed to opt out? or would co-ercian be okay here? [on the minarchist view yes, it's the clear legitimate role for the state because if it cannot act in our self defence then there's no point in having it. When you say that many people would not want their money spent in that direction, I think you're confusing a reluctance to pay for foreign adventures with a need to defend yourself from an external aggressor].

And notions of defence need to be discussed surely? Do you mean external enemies? Do you mean terrorists? Do you mean criminals ? Those who would prey on the weak, the old, the defenceless? Muggers/ Rapists? Child abusers? THose behind honour killings? Gangs who would run riot without police to safeguard us against those they rob, rape and kill? How will that work in you minarchist world? [the right to bear arms would be of considerable assistance, for a start]. What about protection against those greedy people who will play with the funds in the city - and lose their companies and investors billions of pounds or dollars unless rules exist (and rules perhaps better enforced than now). Rules of hygiene enforced by law in hospitals and places where we go to eat? Or are restaurants yhat have cockroaches and rats running around be okay in a Minarchist world rather than having rules which compel them to pay attention to regulations about hygiene and safety? [this can all be dealt with by the principle of caveat emptor and the private law of contract] Why not let children work as chimney sweeps again or spend their childhoods down in the darkness of the mines? [as opposed to being dragooned into sink schools, in many cases against theirs and their families best interests, in the name of producing a worker bee class to support the "national economy" in it's next five-year plan?] Hospitals with rats in operating theatre and where you can only go anyway if you can afford to pay? Airlines not rquired to obey safety regulations. Or trains drivers. I could go on - but i think you get the picture [again, caveat emptor and the private law of contract answer these points]. Do you really believe that human nature will prevail and give us all a nice harmonious world? [Notwithstanding that most people agree with you politically, yes; I have a great deal more faith in human goodness, given half a chance, than you do]Or would we return to a world where life was nasty, brutish and short for all but the most privileged? " [life expectancy among men in parts of the welfare squat that is Glasgow is among the lowest in the world]

an8150

11-08-2012, 02:06 PM

"No they're judgements. Read my later post."

Judgments are based on analysis. Thus and for example, to conclude in judgment that it is trite to say that there is no distinction between a mugger and the state (although that is not quite what I said) would require an analysis of the claim that there is no such distinction before the conclusion or judgment could properly be reached.

Prospero

11-08-2012, 02:08 PM

I think you have made plain your generally naive and contemptible attitude to the world.
As i've said before - thank goodness your philosophy is one adhered to by few and utterly unrealistic.

an8150

11-08-2012, 02:13 PM

My contemptible attitude to the world?

It's not I who thinks so poorly of humanity as to compel it to behave I believe to be decent.

danthepoetman

11-08-2012, 03:22 PM

I think some of you people should go through the Rorschach test. What do you see on that spot?

trish

11-08-2012, 04:39 PM

If you partake of the fruits of others, then you incur a debt. It's your duty to pay your debts. Tax evaders are freeloaders.

an8150

11-08-2012, 05:43 PM

trish, "If you partake of the fruits of others, then you incur a debt. It's your duty to pay your debts. Tax evaders are freeloaders."

Rather depends whether they've paid in more or less than they've taken out. Moreover, in my view, a duty can only be voluntarily assumed.

trish

11-08-2012, 05:58 PM

Rather depends whether they've paid in more or less than they've taken out.Rather depends on the agreement settled upon by the representatives whom you voted into office.

Moreover, in my view, a duty can only be voluntarily assumed. Sometimes people don't read the fine print, but they are nevertheless bound. If you voluntarily partake of the fruits of others labor, then you assume a debt and a duty to pay. You may assume the debt unwittingly, but it would be pretty stupid to think people are giving out free lunches. Tax evaders are freeloaders.

an8150

11-08-2012, 06:21 PM

trish, you do realise don't you your analysis applies to anyone who takes out more than they put in? or do you have preferred client groups who get a pass on that?

trish

11-08-2012, 06:30 PM

It's not my analysis, it's simple common sense. By participating in our democracy and availing yourself of its fruits you have incurred an obligation to abide by the law. If you think you're paying more in then you're getting out (and I seriously seriously doubt it) then take it up with the legislature. If you willfully refuse to pay your debts, then you are an untrustworthy freeloader. Tax evaders are freeloaders.

Stavros

11-08-2012, 06:45 PM

No distinction between a mugger and the state. Trite.

Prospero, you may or not be aware that there is a strong tradition of minimalism/anarchism/minarchism in the social sciences. Students used to be asked to compare the arguments in John Rawls' A Theory of Justice, with Robert Nozick's Anarchy State and Utopia, precisely because the former attempted to develop a theory of justice from within the context of the modern state, while Nozick disputed the purpose of most state institutions; together they formed part of the intellectual arguments in the 1970s which challenged the dominance of Keynesian economics and social democracy.

In political sociology, Charles Tilly for years maintained his argument that the state is a protection racket, there is an eloquent chapter on his beliefs in this link (for some reason the typescript is occasionally odd but you can read around it).
static.ow.ly/docs/0%20Tilly%2085_5Xr.pdf

Tilly argues that war/violence has been the determining factor in the creation of the modern state, whereas I think he downplays the role played by money and trade; and his historic examples are thus drawn to the internal imposition of Royal power at the expense of local barons, and the maritime imposition of power across continents, and incidentally how piracy became part of the mix which forced the creation of the state. He doesn't have room for the arguments which you find in Skinner's books on the history of political philosophy where the growth of the Italian city states, while not disavowing violence, was nevertheless based on trade, he is wrong about China which was a maritime power, on the basis of the Emperors' use of inland waterwats; and Tilly thus doesn't see the protection racket in class terms, as the creation of laws and institutions that developed to protect the interests of the merchant classes at the expense of the 'peasants and workers'; and does not go beyond the modern state to concede with Marx that communism would not require the existence of a state at all, though you won't find many of Ayn Rand's disciples begging to be members of a voluntary association if it is also called Communism...what purpose would private property serve in a voluntary association?

As I see it, the flaw in an8150's argument is that he/she does not admit that our states in the UK and the USA are more voluntary than he wants to believe; the concept of coercion is in this context an attempt to describe something he doesn't like as coercive/negative, suggesting that if you oppose it, you must enjoy being coercive. It is entirely possible for him/her or anyone else to create a political party/movement whose dedicated aim is to end state power, and re-structure social relations as voluntary associations, presumably with the defence of the realm the only 'national' organisation, although there is no logic for this in objectivism either, and, as the American Colonies showed in the 1770s, defence -indeed, attack- can be mounted through local armed militias.

The Governments of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were suppposed to reduce state power, and to the extent that in the UK the state ceased to run commercial enterprises, Thatcher succeeded, yet by the time she left office, government spending was higher than it was when she left it, and the proliferation of non-governmental associations, providing services paid for by the tax-payer had increased.

But this is an idea that should be put to the people on a regular basis; in my opinion there are only a few who would actually want to live through the transition from the security provided by the NHS, for example, to the lottery of voluntarism; and anyway our participation as citizens in this state is not closed, this is not North Korea or the old USSR -there are many instruments that we can use to create transparent government, to tie legislators down to the rules we create, and so on. If anything, we need more collective action to make the UK more democratic.

You can also read about Nozick here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia

an8150

11-08-2012, 07:59 PM

At last, some intelligent and informed observations. Stavros, welcome back.

trish

11-09-2012, 12:42 AM

At last, some intelligent and informed observations...
Especially this part->

...As I see it, the flaw in an8150's argument is that he/she does not admit that our states in the UK and the USA are more voluntary than he wants to believe; the concept of coercion is in this context an attempt to describe something he doesn't like as coercive/negative, suggesting that if you oppose it, you must enjoy being coercive. It is entirely possible for him/her or anyone else to create a political party/movement whose dedicated aim is to end state power, and re-structure social relations as voluntary associations, presumably with the defence of the realm the only 'national' organisation, although there is no logic for this in objectivism either, and, as the American Colonies showed in the 1770s, defence -indeed, attack- can be mounted through local armed militias.The "bolding" is mine.

hippifried

11-09-2012, 02:12 AM

This the basic problem with the egoist ideal. Well, aside from the bullshit notion that altruism doesn't exist. The silly idea that one shouldn't contribute to the pot they eat from unless it suits them at the moment. Worrying about whether you're putting in more than somebody else is a form of paranoia caused by the belief that personal property is more important than the society itself that feeds you in the first place. Nobody's twisting anybody else's arm to belong to the society. If you don't like the basic rules of social behavior, then don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way to Somalia or wherever you can find a place that lives without rules. Maybe all by yourself in a cave somewhere.

an8150

11-09-2012, 02:24 AM

I think you'll find, trish, that the concept of coercion is the concept of coercion. It doesn't become something else in a different context. Something else in a different context is, er, something else. As Ayn Rand used to say, A is A.

Nevertheless, I fully accept that it is open to me to try and change things from within. The education I've been trying to give you over the last couple of days might be taken as an example of this. I've also agreed with Prospero that I, and those few who agree with me, are unlikely to achieve any such change and, I say, one of the reasons for this is the sheer weight of numbers of people in receipt of freebies - freeloaders, if you like - (Mittens' 47%?) all of whom have votes. So I'm up against votes bought and paid for. Heigh-ho.

an8150

11-09-2012, 02:34 AM

trish

11-09-2012, 03:08 AM

Of course coercion is coercion. I wouldn't deny a tautology, though I will deny that you can prove anything of significance from one so simple. The point is you are not being coerced to perform an acton when when your motivation excludes fear of penalty for not doing it.

But you already conceded your point when you praised Stavros's intelligent post. :)

The capacity to make yourself understood to almost any citizen through the medium of the written word has been provided largely by Federal, State and municipal tax dollars. Nevermind if you personally were home schooled or attended only private schools, those who are reading your words on this thread (available to you because of a worldwide collective effort known as the internet) learned to read because society at large paid to have them taught. In my town taxes are not levied by an all powerful King. We vote on whether we should or shouldn’t grant our local school system more taxing authority. Those of us who pay our taxes pay proudly without coericion (if even it hurts) because we’re proud of our teachers, our students and our schools. People who refuse to pay their taxes are freeloaders. You want to make a case for freeloading be my guest. But penalties against freeloading do not attain the level of coercion.

hippifried

11-09-2012, 09:51 AM

hippifried, "This the basic problem with the egoist ideal. Well, aside from the bullshit notion that altruism doesn't exist [who said that? Not me. In point of fact, I think most of what is called altruism is in fact selfishness, in that most altruistic acts are done in order to make the doer feel better. I have no problem with per se, but I do object to the suggestion that it is somehow disinterested. Not to say that altruism in its purest form doesn't exist, but it's very rare]. The silly idea that one shouldn't contribute to the pot they eat from unless it suits them at the moment [I haven't said you shouldn't; what I've said is you shouldn't be compelled to contribute to someone else's pot. It's really not that difficult to grasp]. Worrying about whether you're putting in more than somebody else is a form of paranoia caused by the belief that personal property is more important than the society itself that feeds you in the first place [you're right, I didn't build that bridge, an abstraction called society did]. Nobody's twisting anybody else's arm to belong to the society [actually, don't you Americans have extra-territorial taxation?]. If you don't like the basic rules of social behavior [you're not describing social behaviour, you're describing what has been legislated for], then don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way to Somalia or wherever you can find a place that lives without rules. Maybe all by yourself in a cave somewhere. [a better argument, but one that fails to address things like family ties]"

Listening to you lot, I wonder what you suppose folks should be voting about. I mean, if it's all settled like.

What a crock of shit. Who said altruism doesn't exist? The demigod of the egoist cult Ayn Rand did, & you just parroted her argument. When did disinterest become a prerequisite for altruism? Or any virtue really.

"someone else's pot" wasn't any part of what I was saying & you know it. Nice try at changing the subject, but it doesn't work. I didn't just get off the boat. I've argued all this many times. Without fail, it always comes to a point where the egoist tries to change the subject, paraphrase what I said into something I never said, claim ignorance of common terminology, or rewrite the dictionary to fit the agenda, or some combination thereof. It's always deliberate, & I see no reason to let you slide. Especially when you're trying to use it as a lead in for some unsuccessful snide or condescending remark.

Society isn't an abstraction. It's the reason we exist as the dominant species, or even as a species at all. We're bereft of fang, claw, speed, & strength. Without the social collective, we never get out of the trees. Maybe we survive if one of the real predators figured out that ranching humans would give them an unlimited supply of food.

Now how did I get the impression that you were American? Oh well, to answer your question on out of country taxation: Not necessarily. I'm no lawyer, butteye believe it has something to do with whether you bring the money back here. It's a jurisdictional thing. You can look it up if you like. I won't because I don't care.

Social behavior is merely what's expected in order to get along in the society. The universal moral code deals with interpersonal contact, & the rest is all about pooling resources to make life more comfortable. That's how that bridge that you use but didn't build got there. Water comes out of the tap. You take a shit & flush it off to somewhere else to be properly dealt with. Infrastructure is always a group effort. We legislate because of the sheer volume of the population. We use taxation instead of conscription because currency simplifies barter.

Family ties??? Don't start gettin' all mushy & altruistic. They're free to follow you wherever. Not that they would.

Nothing's settled. You're still whining.

an8150

11-09-2012, 10:07 AM

trish, "Of course coercion is coercion. I wouldn't deny a tautology [Stavros' post does; he says in some circumstances coercion is not coercion] , though I will deny that you can prove anything of significance from one so simple [E=MC2 = E=MC2. Aren't all tautologies simple?]. The point is you are not being coerced to perform an acton when when your motivation excludes fear of penalty for not doing it [I agree].

But you already conceded your point when you praised Stavros's intelligent post. [I did? you mean I threw the towel in at that point? Who knew? There was me thinking it was gratifying to see some red meat and education]

The capacity to make yourself understood to almost any citizen through the medium of the written word has been provided largely by Federal, State and municipal tax dollars [you mean people couldn't read and right before the federal government came along?] or do you mean that literacy rates are higher now? if the latter, you may, as far as the UK at least is concerned be on sticky ground]. Nevermind if you personally were home schooled or attended only private schools, those who are reading your words on this thread (available to you because of a worldwide collective effort known as the internet [wasn't the internet created in fact by the US military? and the www by either Al Gore or Berners Lee, depending on how credulous you are?]) learned to read because society at large paid to have them taught [no it didn't; tapxayers, and their unborn children, did that, through the medium of a government which passed laws requiring them to do so]. In my town taxes are not levied by an all powerful King. We vote on whether we should or shouldn’t grant our local school system more taxing authority [now that bit I like, it sounds encouraging, we don't have anything like that degree of freedom here]. Those of us who pay our taxes pay proudly without coericion (if even it hurts) because we’re proud of our teachers, our students and our schools. People who refuse to pay their taxes are freeloaders. You want to make a case for freeloading be my guest. But penalties against freeloading do not attain the level of coercion." [you're on even stickier ground there, trish. as I've already point out re. anybody who gets out more than they pay in. put another way, freeloading is freeloading... so tell me more about those penalties...?].

Stavros

11-09-2012, 03:56 PM

The point that I was making, in my post, was that historians have agreed that taxation has been a central element in the creation of state power in territories, and that because it occasioned violent reactions, the settlement of disputes with superior fire-power owned in greater volume and sophistication by monarchs, also created a more centralised form of power that benefited the monarch and those barons who susbscribed to it -and of course some then wanted the crown for themselves and wars were fought to achieve/defeat these aims. Tilly and others see monarchies and the modern state as a protection racket, but as I said, there was more to the rise of the modern state than taxation, and as you follow through the story, you reach a point in the American Colonies, when 'No Taxation Without Representation' becomes a Revolutionary call. Magna Carta may have clipped the wings of the Monarch, the English Revolution did away with the head of Charles I, but in this country universal suffrage, defined as offering men and women the equal right to vote, did not arrive until the General Election of 1928 (it was 1920 in the USA). Women over 30 were allowed to vote in the UK in 1918.
The growth of science and technological change through the industrial revolution, which began in the late 18th century, can be seen as part of a capitalist revolution that began in piecemeal fashion across Europe between the 12th and the 15th centuries; it has gone through various phases, mercantile, industrial, and shows no sign of being eclipsed by an alternative which is why the collapse of Communism was called 'The End of History' in a well-known, but badly written book by Francis Fukuyama.

Ayn Rand sees her objectivist philosophy as part of trend that accepts the basic tenets of capitalism but argues that it becomes deformed when it is taken over, or interfered in by the state, much as Adam Smith limited the role of national government to the protection of the realm, the rule of law, and provision of those things which the market cannot provide (whatever that means). The horizontal growth of the state in the 20th century is thus seen as a trend that should be reversed -the initial policies on social welfare that were introduced into the UK by the Liberal Government of 1910 are seen as the beginning of a system in which the state took over charitable deeds, funding them from taxation rather than voluntary donations. Total war in 1914-18 while it may have been an industrial necessity, thus fed into the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, and this totalizing impulse -it is alleged- carried on after 1945 in the UK with the creation of state enterprises, the nationalisation of water, gas, electricity, transport, education, and health.

The obvious problem that Ayn Rand and her supporters cannot face up to, is that the days when states coerced people into paying taxes are gone. Not only do I not object to paying taxes, and pay them willingly, I was one of the people who would gladly have paid extra taxes to fund education -as the Liberal Democrats claimed some years ago, although I would not have voted for them. The real issue is that people are concerned that their taxes are not being spent properly, or are being used to pay excessive administrative fees. And if the majority in an election support a policy that uses their taxes to fund education and health, the minority cannot complain, or can campaign against a change in the law, or mount a revolution to overthrow a government that doesn't give them what they want, or better still, do away with representative democracy.

The response from some Libertarians, like Jamie Redford, is to claim we are saps, we've been had -the joke is on us because this protection racket called the modern state is run by a privileged few for a privileged few, mostly Freemasons, Jews, the Bilderberg Group, and so on: thus, Our Prime Minister David Cameron went to a school called Eton; the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson went to a school called Eton; the second in line to the throne, Prince William went to a school called Eton, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, the operational boss of the Church of England in a Christian state, went to a school called Eton, and so on: in this context, Ayn Rand and the Libertarians are the new Revolutionaries whose goal is to take capitalism either into a new era of individual responsibility, or back to where it was in the American Colonies in the 1770s before the growth of the Federal state.

Either way it is a utopian project based on huge assumptions about the benefits of replacing government with associations of self-interested people.
It assumes that it is not only a good thing for associations of people to replace the state, it is always a good thing. But then you have those associations which have indeed filled the gap left by the absence of state power: the collapse of the Kingdon of Naples and Sicily in 1860 and the 'Unification of Italy' was a primary cause of the creation of 'this thing of ours' among some Sicilians, also known as Cosa Nostra. Creating a mode of power and an exchange system based on Omerta and violence does not seem to me to be fulfillment a community of self-interested individuals when too many of the people drawn into it have no choice in the matter, and will end up dead in a ditch if they object.

What happens when an association of self-interested individuals somewhere in Nebraska decide that being a particular kind of Christian is essential to being part of their community? Rand and most of her followers were/are atheists, so are they going to send their children to a school they part-fund if it means Little Johnny comes home convinced that whatever happens in life is in fact the Will of God not his personal choice?

What happens when the neighborhood watch replaces the police and the army, when, one night a member of the Watch sees a suspicious person and, after an altercation and maybe a struggle, shoots him dead, only to find he had a right to be where he was?

The philosophy of objectivism is no more perfect than the Marxism which also believes the state should 'wither away'; it does not guarantee that there will be free enterprise or freedom of the individual from overbearing controls -be they imposed by the state, or when it goes, by the Church, or some local charismatic preacher or the husbands of the Stepford Wives, because Rand cannot guarantee democracy, or liberty, or life itself. It relies on fear, the fear that the state is controlling you, the fear that the state is preventing you from realising your full potential, just as Nietszche argued that Christianity had prevented man from realising his full potential by forcing him to be charitable, humble, and thus a slave to an illusion. It uses taxes as a wedge because it refuses to believe that people pay taxes willingly, and as Trish has pointed out, doesn't care or want to know what taxes are actually used for, and how we all benefit from the roads and railways, from the schools and the laboratories, and can also hold our legislators to account for what they do with out taxes.

Ultimately, Ayn Rand cannot even agree with Adam Smith, a Scot whose promotion of capitalism as a revolutionary force was consonant with his times (the Wealth of Nations was published in 1776), we have moved on since then. The modern state can no more be un-invented than nuclear weapons; and where the state has collapsed, yes, individuals have survived through their own wits, self-interest and endeavour, but often in a climate of violence, lawlessness and fear.

If you want to live on the frontier, go ahead, and fight it out with your rivals. I prefer life where I am thank you.

Prospero

11-09-2012, 04:08 PM

Bravo Stavros. A fine and sustained piece of argument.

trish

11-09-2012, 04:42 PM

[E=MC2 = E=MC2. Aren't all tautologies simple?]The equivalence of mass and energy is an empirical law of science, not a tautology, that can be derived from a number of postulates (including the constancy of the speed of light, also an empirical claim-not a tautology) which constitute the theory of relativity. It's not so simple either. Moreover, there are formal tautologies that would take reams of paper to write down. So no, not all tautologies are simple. But you digress.

Your claim is that no state action is anything other than coercive.

...I refute the suggestion that there is not by reference to those people on this forum who demand coercive state action (there is of course no other kind of state action)...

Many pages and dozens of counterexamples later you still insist on your claim, never dispensing with a single counterexample. “Coercion is coercion” is not a proof no matter how many times you repeat it. It’s just a tautology___unless like Stavros you equivocate between the subject “Coercion” and the object “coercion.” If you’re doing that, then like Stavros you are obliged to explain the two different senses of the word in use.

Yes freeloading is freeloading. Are you equivocating or stating boring tautologies again. I already stated that it’s the agreement that defines the terms of a contract not who gets more out of the terms. Besides, you never gave us a quantitative input-output analysis to support your presumed claim that you have put more in than you’ve gotten out. You take part in elections, use the infrastructure, have a home protected against thieves and fraud by the law of land, you partake of the benefits of government, then you willingly or unwitting incur a debt and it is your obligation to pay it or be labeled what you are, a freeloader. Tax evaders are freeloaders.

Stavros

11-09-2012, 07:08 PM

The concept of coercion is a tricky one; looked at historically I think the age when taxes were coerced out of people has been replaced by the collective understanding that taxes are used to maintain the apparatus of the state and a range of policies that legislators have agreed on, with the assumption that they are voted for democratically.

Where this concept of coercion seems to be used, it is in the Randian sense with people who object to funding services that they want to buy for themselves: typically with health and education. It is possible to buy your own health protection in the UK, your own pension plan, and pay the fees to send your children to a private school, like Eton, or the Dragon School or any of hundreds of such schools. But you cannot then reduce your tax payments because you claim to have opted out of the NHS and the education system, they will be taken from your wage packet each month whether you like it or not. This I assume is what they mean by coercion, even though it has been democratically agreed -although of course the more extreme libertarians claim that we do not live in a democracy, that the parties are all the same, the results are fixed, the decisions are made by the bankers, the Rothschilds and so on.

Some years ago in the UK some people refused to pay taxes because they said they were used to fund nuclear weapons, and as they were pacifist, they could not condone the producution, let alone the use of such weapons, but they failed to convince the courts their argument had validity. I think the Randians want a pick 'n mix approach to tax -you pay the ones you like, and opt out of the ones you don't -a recipe for fiscal and administrative chaos. Suppose half the population claims to be pacifist and decides not to pay taxes for the military? Does that mean that in the event of Canada invading the USA, the ones who didn't pay their military taxes will not be able to flee their state capital on the last helicopter to freedom? They will end up defeated, slaves to the land of Ice Hockey, the Queen, and Beaver.

trish

11-09-2012, 07:23 PM

What Randians don't understand is that they receive the benefit of having an educated populace even if they (the Randians) obtained and paid for a private education. It not enough that you can read, but for communication to succeed you have to be read by people capable of reading. Taxes don't pay for your individual education, they pay for the general education of the citizenry. The same goes for other services provided by government. Because of this failure in general understanding of benefits and cost, pick'n mix probably is unworkable.

an8150

11-09-2012, 08:55 PM

I see that your latest tagline, Prospero, comes from Kant. It probably won't interest you to know that Rand despised Kant.

Incidentally, you accused me a day or two ago of having contempt for the world. I don't know what part of that you supposed to include humanity, but if your citation of this quote from Kant is intended as an endorsement by you, it is indeed you who holds mankind in contempt.

an8150

11-09-2012, 09:01 PM

an8150

11-09-2012, 09:04 PM

"The obvious problem that Ayn Rand and her supporters cannot face up to, is that the days when states coerced people into paying taxes are gone"

Were that true, Stavros, there'd be no need for laws to punish tax evaders. However, I agree, as I have already done, that most people are committed to the sacred cows of the social democratic state. I'd say it's a matter of faith, in many cases, as well as a rational exercise in self-interest.

an8150

11-09-2012, 09:13 PM

hippifried

11-10-2012, 04:50 AM

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

Yeah, because that happens every single time, just like when... Uh... Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot. It's never happened. Never mind. Just another bullshit statement in quotes.

trish

11-10-2012, 07:35 AM

An unregulated free market cannot exist as a permanent form of economy. Individual businesses will form coalitions to edge out their competitors. Coalitions of coalitions will edge out even more competitors until the entire world and the people in it will be the property of handful of the greediest and wealthiest powers. The market will no longer be free, but ruled by these massive conglomerations. Wealth and power do not radiate wealth and power away from themselves, but rather, like massive black holes they coalesce and spin around each other. In a mad attempt to grab the last raw material and score the last profit these last swollen giants will swallow the world.

Don't believe me, check out the theorems of John Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern: The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior

Every working engine needs a governor or a regulator of some sort to prevent runaway feedback and keep the engine working within functional tolerances; every kind of useful engine, including economic engines need regulation.

an8150

11-10-2012, 09:31 AM

an8150

11-10-2012, 10:56 AM

trish,"An unregulated free market cannot exist as a permanent form of economy. Individual businesses will form coalitions to edge out their competitors. Coalitions of coalitions will edge out even more competitors until the entire world and the people in it will be the property of handful of the greediest and wealthiest powers. The market will no longer be free, but ruled by these massive conglomerations. Wealth and power do not radiate wealth and power away from themselves, but rather, like massive black holes they coalesce and spin around each other. In a mad attempt to grab the last raw material and score the last profit these last swollen giants will swallow the world.

Don't believe me, check out the theorems of John Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern: The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior

Every working engine needs a governor or a regulator of some sort to prevent runaway feedback and keep the engine working within functional tolerances; every kind of useful engine, including economic engines need regulation. "

You want to control and direct me for my own good? That is kind. And who is to control and direct you in that endeavour? And who they?

Stavros

11-10-2012, 01:34 PM

Stavros, "And if the majority in an election support a policy that uses their taxes to fund education and health, the minority cannot complain, or can campaign against a change in the law, or mount a revolution to overthrow a government that doesn't give them what they want, or better still, do away with representative democracy."

And on that last point, I give you (depending on whom you believe) either Tytler or de Tocqueville:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

The difficulty most libertarians have with revolution is that, unlike our ideological opponents, we are a peaceable bunch. Indeed, ideologically, we have to be.

Neither Tytler nor de Tocqueville are responsible for that notorious quote, not least because the last line you quote is followed by the phrase The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. I don't think an educated man like de Tocqueville would have written that, nor would Alexander Tytler, an educated Scot living in the glow of the Scottish renaissance. It is common enough for democracy to be challenged as the best form of governance that we have, because democracy is not perfect. Although they lost seats in the 1932 election the Nazis were the largest democractically elected party in the Reichstag,, which is why eventually Hitler was invited to become Chancellor in 1933, and the rest as they say is history.

The problem would be that even if de Tocqueville had written it, it has been by-passed by history, because what the US experience has shown, is that the democracy that was founded in 1776 has changed and been responsive to the needs and demands of American citizens -the most obvious reforms that have been made, in the form of Constituional amendments, mean that the democracy that was founded in slavery, eventually abolished it; the democracy that denied women equal rights subsequently gave those rights to them; the democracy that gave businesses the right to operate free from the law, observed the creation of monopolies that inhibited free enterprise, and passed the anti-trust laws to prevent this happening; the democracy that denied people the right to drink alcohol later restored that right; the democracy that failed to limit the number of terms a President could serve, realised with FDR that one man could be President for a very long time, so imposed a limit on terms, and so on.

Basically, the libertarians are sore because they don't have the popular vote, be it in the UK or the USA, which is why 'the people' are ridiculed as 'sheeple' as if the majority were so poorly educated, so ignorant of what is in their best interests that they send in the clowns every 4-5 years and get shafted as a result. It is up to the people to make democracy work, but it is worth it because the alternative is either dictatorship or anarchy.

Incidentally, while it is true there are people on the left who have been banker-bashing for years, I am sure you are aware that 'the Bankers' are a core group of the privileged few derided by conspiracy theorists who believe we are controlled by the Beast, the Oligarchs, the Bilderberg Group, the Bohemian Grove, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Knights of Malta (who have observer status at the UN of course), the Priory of Sion, and so on.

trish

11-10-2012, 04:28 PM

You want to control and direct me for my own good? No, I want the people to regulate the market for their own good.

...who is to control and direct you...? And who they? The people. You know, those people that government is of, by and for. We regulate together.

hippifried

11-10-2012, 11:30 PM

hippifried, "Yeah, because that happens every single time, just like when... Uh... Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot. It's never happened. Never mind. Just another bullshit statement in quotes. "

You haven't heard about what been happening recently in certain of the PIIGS countries, then?

Sure I have. But that's a corporate power play & has nothing to do with your lame quote. Just like everybody else, they were doing ok until the bank panic stopped up revenue streams. Now the same semi-anonymous money changers who created the artificial panic, & hold vast amounts of bonds, are demanding full payments they know can't be made because of their shenanigans. Austerity programs are just a ploy to lower wages, & have never been a benefit to anyone except debt holders who end up taking real property in lieu of shuffled numbers. Talk about coercion...

hippifried

11-10-2012, 11:52 PM

Stavros, "...of course the more extreme libertarians claim that we do not live in a democracy, that the parties are all the same [indeed, they bicker over who is best-suited to running the status quo, which is the flip side to my question last night: what do the self-styled progressives and social democrats and assorted socialists on this thread think we should be voting about, if it's all settled and people like me should just shut up and go away?], the results are fixed, the decisions are made by the bankers [come on, that's more of a leftie trope], the Rothschilds and so on."

That's not Libertarians. Those are John Birchers. All that lunatic conspiracy crap comes straight from the two "None dare call it..." books that form the backbone of the anti-communist group that made Ayn Rand seem pink. Pointing left with everything you see that seems whacky doesn't work.

hippifried

11-10-2012, 11:59 PM

An unregulated free market cannot exist as a permanent form of economy. Individual businesses will form coalitions to edge out their competitors. Coalitions of coalitions will edge out even more competitors until the entire world and the people in it will be the property of handful of the greediest and wealthiest powers. The market will no longer be free, but ruled by these massive conglomerations. Wealth and power do not radiate wealth and power away from themselves, but rather, like massive black holes they coalesce and spin around each other. In a mad attempt to grab the last raw material and score the last profit these last swollen giants will swallow the world.

There's a term for when government goes out of its way to aid in that outcome. It's called "fascism".

Odelay

11-11-2012, 05:00 PM

Here's the problem with Ayn Rand, as I see it...

Her heroes are extremely gifted entrepreneurs who revolutionize some industry, who subsequently aren't appreciated enough, and who then go to extreme lengths to withdraw their works and talent from society, presumably leaving society in worse shape.

John Galt and his merry men (and women) of gifted inventors and thinkers, withdraw to a remote shangri-la type place in Atlas Shrugged. Howard Roark, in Fountainhead, quits as the most unique architect in the world and on the way out blows up one of the buildings that bastardized his design. Rand glorifies these titans of capitalism.

So her long fictional pieces are paeans to capitalism, itself. Some would say in line with Adam Smith and the classicists, but I'd argue closer to Friedman and the neo-classicists. Except for one thing...

Even Friedman would laugh at the idea that removing geniuses from society would have any hugely significant impact on society. The invisible hand is the invisible hand. Classical economic theory, if anything, is a rejection of the whole Philosopher King theory that emerged out of the Renaissance, that emphasized that one great man, or one group of great men, is all that is needed to advance society. Adam Smith and his disciples refute that by claiming that if there is a demand for products or services, and there is capital available for fulfilling that demand, that some enterprising person will pursue that opportunity in the spirit of self-interest or profit.

So I laugh when I read post-election pieces by various tin pot entrepreneurs who claim that they're withdrawing from the market or firing half their employees. All they're doing is creating a new demand opportunity for someone else to fill.

The heroic withdrawal actions of Rand's characters mean practically nothing in her glorious tributes to capitalism, as capitalism has been understood around the world and through the centuries.

I feel a little bit sorry for those business owners who are now Going Galt, because they obviously don't understand the markets of which they revere.

-----

As for coercion grafted atop our system of capitalism, I can imagine how that might be upsetting to certain libertarians. My guess is that there is some society, somewhere on the planet, where capitalism can be practiced with less coercion. Maybe Australia or Singapore, I really don't know. These are just examples I'm throwing out here. But it seems to me that if the American system of capitalism becomes too oppressive for some citizen entrepreneurs, that these people have options.

an8150

11-12-2012, 09:48 PM

Stavros, your comment about how people are derided by those out of power (in this case libertarians) is spot on: the people know exactly what is in their best interests, as described by de Tocqueville, or ?Tytler, or whomsoever you say said the quote above. As I said previously, what is characterised as the selflessness of the social democratic model is in fact large numbers of people voting to line their own pockets at the expense of others.

an8150

11-12-2012, 09:54 PM

an8150

11-12-2012, 11:38 PM

trish, you haven't understood the gravamen of my observations or of the questions arising from them.

an8150

11-12-2012, 11:46 PM

hipifred, "Sure I have. But that's a corporate power play & has nothing to do with your lame quote. Just like everybody else, they were doing ok until the bank panic stopped up revenue streams. Now the same semi-anonymous money changers who created the artificial panic, & hold vast amounts of bonds, are demanding full payments they know can't be made because of their shenanigans. Austerity programs are just a ploy to lower wages, & have never been a benefit to anyone except debt holders who end up taking real property in lieu of shuffled numbers. Talk about coercion... "

You need to have a word to Stavros about conspiracies. You also need to learn to write coherently, deploying sentences that mean something.

Back in the real world, the PIIGS governments like, but mostly to a greater extent than, other countries in the West, have been spending money they don't have. They've been behaving like drunken sailors for years, and now they've run out of money. That's not some artificial situation, it's reality catching up with them. And the EU is busy installing bureaucratic regimes in the capital cities of these countries with the power to override the the decision-making of their democratically elected governments. Loose fiscal policy is leading to dictatorship. And given the recent history of most of these countries, the odds are high that they, or some of them, will collapse into old style military dictatorship.

an8150

11-12-2012, 11:53 PM

trish

11-13-2012, 12:26 AM

Gravamen? There is no seriousness to your complaints whatsoever. You claim that

...coercive state action (there is of course no other kind of state action)...
Really? All State actions, absolutely all, are coercive? Sending assistance to the storm swept east coast is coercive? The decision not to fund the superconducting supercollider was coercive? The decision to launch and land Curiosity on Mars was coercive? The decision to make Pell Grants available to university students is coercive? Oh we could debate various senses of word “coerce.” A broad interpretation would hold that every person who acts to claim and protect their private property is being coercive, threatening to use physical force to keep what they claim is theirs and theirs alone. We’ve all seen children who behave that way. A narrower and more commonly held interpretation would hold that there are indeed State actions which are not coercive.

When I spoke about Von Neumann and Morgenstern’s proof of the instability of free markets and the need for a regulator you posted ->

You want to control and direct me for my own good? That is kind. And who is to control and direct you in that endeavour? And who they?
Do I want to control you? No. It’s absurd of you to say so. I don’t even know you. I don’t care if you drop dead while composing your next post. I don’t want to control you at all. Not for your own good and most of all, I don’t want to be bothered with the task of controlling you. I wasn’t even talking about me or you, I was speaking about free market economies. I asserted that unregulated free market economies deteriorate into markets controlled by one, two, three, a handful of powerful players.

If you exercised some self control and rebutted honest points of view instead of straw men, we might see your gravamen.

Stavros

11-13-2012, 01:07 AM

PS, Stavros, I've got no idea what your final paragraph about the Bilderbergs etc. has to do with libertarians or Randians. We pejoratively call transnationalist progressives "tranzis", as you may be aware, but most of us don't say there's anything about conspiratorial about their behaviour, they're pretty open about their agenda for those with eyes to see, and one need only listen to their denunciation of their opponents to have that confirmed.

You may not be aware of it, but we have a resident libertarian/anarcho-capitalist who rails against the secretive networks of power exercised by the Rothschilds, the Freemasons, and all the usual suspects joined to the hip of the Beast. Her work is here, enjoy!
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=63803

Odelay

11-13-2012, 05:05 AM

Odelay, could somebody else have painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, had Michelangelo never existed? Would somebody else have composed the Brandenburg Concertos, ditto Bach?

Rand's point in Atlas Shrugged is that if productive, initiative-taking genii of society go on strike, and all we're left with is the mediocre, then we will all suffer as a result.

The former can get by just fine without the latter, but vice-versa? Maybe we'll find out one day...

Ahh but we won't be left with the mediocre. The market makes sure of that. Unfilled demand is the same as the vacuum that the universe abhors, it will be filled. And demand can be for quality as well as quantity. Your point about Michaelangelo is silly because it's an unprovable counterfactual. My guess is that Michaelangelo was a pretty good marketer. There very well might have been an equal talent who wasn't quite as business savvy. Suffice it to say, he won the contract. Had he not existed, another would have won the contract and his name would be praised today.

I rather enjoy the comedy of all the JD Salinger fans who mourn the fact that he went into hiding, withdrawing his talent from the world. The literary world did not suffer as Vonnegut, Updike, Bellow, Oates, Vidal and many others rose up to take his place. And that goes for any withdrawn genius from Bobby Fischer to Greta Garbo. The market rules, not any one or group of individuals.

Odelay

11-13-2012, 05:12 AM

As for coercion, I'm guessing that living as a peasant in the feudalistic middle ages felt pretty coercive, or just below the mercantile class during the Renaissance, or as a debtor in merry olde england of the 1800's. I'm a liberal, so I don't usually buy into the whole American exceptionalism rah rah bullshit. But I will say I'm grateful to live in America today, even under this awful oppressive Obama regime.

trish

11-13-2012, 05:45 AM

Michaelangelo (da Vinci and all the other Renaissance artists) had a whole factory of apprentices and assistants. Art historians often cannot tell the hand of the master from the apprentice. But surely if Papa John withdraws his exquisite pie making talent from the market, we will all suffer a sad gastronomic loss.

an8150

11-13-2012, 09:52 AM

"If you exercised some self control and rebutted honest points of view instead of straw men, we might see your gravamen."

I rather doubt it.

an8150

11-13-2012, 09:56 AM

an8150

11-13-2012, 10:16 AM

Well, I agree that you can't buck the market (as the Thatcherites used to say), Odelay, but I don't think that's quite what you and I are describing, although I think you have identified the key point about quality/quantity, and you're right, my example is counterfactual, necessarily so. Did the literary world suffer from an absence of Salinger? There I think you perform sleight of-hand: is the provision of fine alternatives a replacement for the particular talent (assuming Salinger would've gone on to write other worthwhile novels...there's a good episode of Frasier dealing with just this sort of theme)? and did the fine alternatives emerge because of the absence of Salinger? it's not the same as the provision and distribution of petrol to motorists, nor even the replacement of petrol with fuel cells, which is kind of why I shied away from posing my examples with characters such as Steve Jobs or Elon Musk (yes, I'm aware neither has anything to do with petrol (gasoline), not sure about fuel cells, but I'm sure you take my point), and chose more extreme examples of transcendental genius. And that's pretty much Rand's approach, as you and many others have pointed out: she takes extreme cases and uses them to make a point.

In short, this is indeed all counterfactual, and we can't know until it happens, but my guess, which is all it is, is that a world of the permanently mediocre will not be as well provided for, and will not progress as far, as fast as a world of the mediocre and the talented/driven.

Set against that, it may be that in a world where the talented and driven have Gone Galt, the feckless and mediocre find themselves obliged to try harder, to achieve more...which may be part of your point. Whether they can or not, is part of Rand's.

an8150

11-13-2012, 10:25 AM

Odelay, "As for coercion, I'm guessing that living as a peasant in the feudalistic middle ages felt pretty coercive, or just below the mercantile class during the Renaissance, or as a debtor in merry olde england of the 1800's. I'm a liberal, so I don't usually buy into the whole American exceptionalism rah rah bullshit. But I will say I'm grateful to live in America today, even under this awful oppressive Obama regime. "

Your average mediaeval monarch didn't have a fraction of the power and reach of a modern government, in terms of micro-management. Whilst it was certainly true that if you ended up on the wrong side of a mediaeval monarch you might well find yourself on the receiving end of a red hot poker (yes indeed), or being torn in two tied to two maddening horses, the reality for most people was that they led miserable lives untouched by government except perhaps in the crucial sense that their destinies were determined by status (not contract), and this was basically determined by the government. But if the modern era is (was) defined by a movement from status to contract, we are now moving in the opposite direction once more, with the government determining our due in life with reference to our deemed memberships of certain identity or client groups.

It's difficult to be sure, but by some measures, the tax take of mediaeval monarchs was a tiny, tiny percentage of the modern social democratic state's.

Stavros

11-13-2012, 12:11 PM

No I wasn't aware of your in-house anarcho-capitalist, Stavros. I shall certainly read her (?) work, as you suggest.

I assume you were trying to bait her out of her quietitude on this thread.

If she is as you've characterised her, I'd say she is in that sense unusual for a libertarian.

I have no intention of baiting anyone, it was a simple piece of information, and I will let you split hairs on the meaning of libertarian, anarchist, anarcho-capitalist, etc as much as you like.

Stavros

11-13-2012, 12:39 PM

Your average mediaeval monarch didn't have a fraction of the power and reach of a modern government, in terms of micro-management. Whilst it was certainly true that if you ended up on the wrong side of a mediaeval monarch you might well find yourself on the receiving end of a red hot poker (yes indeed), or being torn in two tied to two maddening horses, the reality for most people was that they led miserable lives untouched by government except perhaps in the crucial sense that their destinies were determined by status (not contract), and this was basically determined by the government. But if the modern era is (was) defined by a movement from status to contract, we are now moving in the opposite direction once more, with the government determining our due in life with reference to our deemed memberships of certain identity or client groups.

It's difficult to be sure, but by some measures, the tax take of mediaeval monarchs was a tiny, tiny percentage of the modern social democratic state's.

Having told us in an earlier post of your disdain for history it seems odd that you should rely on it to make this claim. It is, quite simply, rubbish as the varying tax rate on farmers when most people worked on the land could rise as high as 25% and in any case, though I don't suppose you have heard of Wat Tyler, or Jack Straw (no, not him), there was a 'Peasant's Revolt' in medieval England in 1381 at a time when people in England were serfs, as in, 'not free'. You may or may not have heard of the 'Poll Tax' (no, not Maggie's). Serfdom was not abolished until 1550, not long before the birth of William Shakespeare, a poet and playwright (b1564). You might also want to find out what a market town was and why it was an innovation in the development of capitalism. And the the British government does not micro-manage my life.
Peasants' Revolt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt)

an8150

11-13-2012, 01:49 PM

an8150

11-13-2012, 01:51 PM

Oh, and the British government's current tax take is about double what it was in Wat Tyler's time, if we take your figure of 25% to be correct.

trish

11-13-2012, 06:37 PM

"If you exercised some self control and rebutted honest points of view instead of straw men, we might see your gravamen."

I rather doubt it.
Admitting then to the straw man style of argument, I see.

Does this post display the gravamen of your perspective?

...I give you (depending on whom you believe) either Tytler or de Tocqueville:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

You want to argue against government and democracy in particular and you support your view with complaints about taxes and a quote, probably by neither Tytler nor de Tocqueville. Tytler and de Tocqueville? Wake up, it’s the twenty first century. In a few short pages you are reduced to making an argument by authority and you can’t even name the authority. But hey, I believe you. You don’t like to pay your taxes. You really really don’t like to pay them. The only reason you do (if you do) is because of the threat of penalty. Okay, you’re coerced. The rest of us, not so much.

Stavros

11-13-2012, 06:38 PM

Of course the British government micro-manages your life, Stavros. It, on behalf of the European Union, tells you which light bulbs you may use. That same government takes varying degrees of interest in what you ingest, and will not allow you to arm yourself against potential threats, unless they are so immediate that the chances of you having a weapon to hand are as near to zero as makes no difference. You may not be aware of it, but regulation governs most things most people do most of the time, from the composition of the oven gloves used to remove food from the oven to precise location and type of boiler used to heat your home.

Nothing I've said on this thread implies a disdain for history. I assume in making that claim you're referring to my dismissal of your inside history of the PLO, Fatah and so forth. But my impression is you're smart enough to appreciate that I took issue not with the history but with your assertion that that history justified your claim that murder was a "political act". You can do better.

There is a difference betwee micro-managing an individual's life, and responding to accidents and diseases by introducing regulations which, for example, do not allow shops or restaurants to sell food to customers that has not been kept in hygienic conditions; in such cases the legislation that covers it is designed to remove threats to health, and if you think that is being over-protective then you can always campaign to reverse the law just as you can (and maybe do) campaign against the UK's continuing membership of the European Union. Even in today's paper there is an article about the illness caused in one of Raymond Blanc's restaurants where the issue is one of culinary standards versus health as the report states:
Blanc Brasseries will now pay £3,103 in costs and have confirmed they will comply with the order, as a spokeswoman said they were unable to cook the liver to council standards without compromising on taste.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9675093/Raymond-Blanc-restaurant-banned-from-serving-lambs-liver-after-food-poisoning.html

Is that micro-management, or the law coming down on the side of health protection? Perhaps you think freedom must allow someone to eat food knowing that it carries a fatal risk, as long as the restaurant points this out to the customer? But is it in the interests of any restaurant to murder its customers?

On the history, I was not making an assertion that history 'justified' the actions of any member of the PLO, I was suggesting that history can explain it, which is not the same thing. If you choose to disregard the ideological imperatives of Palestinian guerilla groups in the 1970s as if it had no meaning, that is your choice, I am not suggesting that the Palestinian cause was 'just' and I have condemned the murders in Munich anyway; but reducing an act of murder to an act of murder alone, which does not exist in many laws (which take context into consideration) removes the political objective of the Palestinian 'struggle' as it was in the 1970s, and thus erases the context in which it happened, just as the violence of the Peasant's Revolt can have no attachment to freedom from your point of view, because it was merely violence. The context, in which men were not free, is presumably irrelevant.

The figure I gave of 25% is obviously not exact, to determine the taxes paid in Medieval England you would need to first consider the fact that serfdom itself is an economic/moral tax of 100% on life, that in addition there were numerous taxes, such as the wool tax, and taxes on other commodities that any time might mean the peasant was effectively living on productive land and destitute at the same time, because he owned none of it, but was still required to pay taxes, or tithes, and also present himself and his sons for the military adventures dreamed up by the local baron or the King. To compare the rate of taxation in the 14th century to what we pay today is meaningless without the context. You might as well claim we have not been free since the days when we wiped woad on our skins and lived in caves, because there were no taxes.

an8150

11-14-2012, 01:38 AM

Stavros, you seem to have moved from an outright denial that such micro-management exists to the claim that it's okay because it's justified by the precautionary principle. Which is the usual justification for such interference. I've read the story to which you link. The restaurant in question was presumably already regulated, so the story is not exactly a poster child for the efficacity of regulation. Of course the same might be said had there been a free market in this restaurant's products (which is arguably irrelevant under the circumstances): as you say, and as I have already said on this thread, its self interest lies in best-serving its customers, giving them the best food it can without poisoning them. Given the nature of the product, in a free market, it might have explicitly warned customers that making the food taste as good as possible in some cases ran the risk of food poisoning, and customers could make their choice as they saw fit. Few would, I imagine take up the offer, but at least it would be there. Now, in one tiny way, to add to all the other tiny ways in which regulation stifles our lives, customers at this restaurant have had that choice removed from them. Nanny knows best. Apparently that proposition doesn't bother you. But I consider myself an adult, and I can make my own decisions about what suits me.

None of this dispensation existed under mediaeval monarchs, whose bureaucracies, whose ability to gather information and act on it, were minute and trivial compared to those of today.

I agree that serfdom was a moral and economic fact of life, but then so is the fact that we work for the government for about half the year (more or less, depending where you live). The distinction is one of like, not one of kind. You refer to the fact that under feudalism, property was (usually) held on sufferance. I would argue that nowadays the concept of property in the western world has been so debased by the terms on which it is held - that boiler you aren't allowed to decide where to locate, for instance, as to be meaningless. Eminent domain, in the US, is another example. Granted, life in the mediaeval era was nastier, more brutish and shorter than it is now, but then again the intervening period of the industrial revolution, as well as medical advances reducing child mortality rates, explain that difference.

As to comparing rates of taxation then and now, you say that "To compare the rate of taxation in the 14th century to what we pay today is meaningless without the context." But that makes my point for me: the context then was of a stunted government which, outside the ambit of the feudal settlement into which most people were born, had no impact on how they lit their mud hits, or where they located their fires within those mud huts, etc. The context now, by contrast, is of a much greater tax take which contributes to funding the micro-management of precisely those things (or their modern equivalent). We are better off, but in many respects less free. And we can be conscripted for military service.

Btw, who's this "William Shakespeare, a poet and playwright" of whom you speak?

trish

11-14-2012, 02:56 AM

What would happen should a genius withdraw his work from the world:

Einstein is celebrated for his special and general theories of relativity. The special theory, published in 1905, rectified an inconsistency thought to reside within Maxwell’s theory of electrodynamics, published in 1861. Up until 1861 is was thought that all the laws of physics should be invariant under Galilean transformations (i.e. that the laws are the same for any two observers in uniform motion relative to an inertial frame of reference). Maxwell’s equations however are not symmetric with respect to Galilean transformations, indeed they predict the constancy of the speed of light from one inertial frame to another. Lorentz worked on this problem from 1892 to 1904, though it was Poincare who noticed that buried in Lorentz’s attempts to come to terms with Maxwell there was an amazing symmetry in Maxwell’s theory: the Maxwell equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations. It was Poincare who first questioned the classical notions of simultaneity, the existence of ether and gave voice to his suspicion that the classical theory of relativity may have to be modified; i.e. that the laws of physics should display a general covariance (or symmetry) with respect to a set of transformations, but that class of transformations may not be Galilean. It was Einstein in 1905 who put two and two together and made the celebrated claim that the laws of physics must be invariant under Lorentz transformations. A great number of troubling conflicts were resolved. Einstein is celebrated for his bravery because a great number of common sense notions (consequences of our everyday familiarity with the Galilean way of thinking) had to be abandoned or revised; i.e. because physics is symmetric with respect to Lorentz transformations rather than Galilean transformations length contracts, time dilates and energy adds to mass with uniform motion. No doubt Einstein was a genius, but did it take a genius to invent special relativity in 1905. Most historians of science and most scientists think not. The theory was ripe for the picking. If not Einstein, then Lorentz, or Poincare, or Weyl or Hilbert would have found it.

But the special theory had its own special troubles. It was unclear just what made one frame of reference inertial another not. Clearly there was a more general symmetry__a bigger broader set of transformations under which the laws of physics were covariant__a more general symmetry which included the Lorentz symmetry as a special case__there had to be a general theory of relativity. Einstein worked on the general theory for more than a decade, publishing a number of false starts and retracting them. In 1915 Einstein gave some lectures in Gottingen on his work in progress. David Hilbert was in attendance. Einstein explained his problem. Einstein conjecture the laws of physics are covariant under all diffeomorphisms of spacetime, but if that were so gravitational forces would have to be reducible (at least locally) to the fictitious inertial forces associated with accelerated frames of reference. The problem then is to write down a set of field equations that connect metric of spacetime to the distribution of matter and energy within. Hilbert thought about it a few months later and wrote down the equations which we now call the Einstein field equations. Einstein published them first, but Hilbert’s derivation of them is not only original but entirely unique. So had Einstein not discovered general relativity, Hilbert certainly would have.

Einstein was also one of the early founders of quantum mechanics. His published his quantum interpretation of the photoelectric effect in 1905, the same year he published his special theory of relativity. But quantum mechanics defied Einstein’s classical grasp of physical theory. He wrestled with it’s dualities and argued with it’s proponents. Even though Einstein lived and worked into old age he effectively withdrew from work on quantum theory. As a critic he is partly responsible for inventing EPR paradox, but his “realist” interpretation failed. The effective withdrawal of his genius from the field did nothing to slow the growth of quantum mechanics, quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics etc. etc.

Odelay

11-14-2012, 03:11 AM

Nice post, Trish. Enjoyed the historical perspective on physics evolution and it's theoreticians.

Actually, I'm enjoying all the posts in this thread. And although I find myself mostly on the opposite side of an8150's views of social democracy, I do find his/her arguments to be well stated, and he/she doesn't resort to the worst rhetorical gimmicks such as constantly moving the goalposts.

It's much easier to agree to disagree with someone who doesn't approach debate from a position of disrespect of one's opponent, and who is willing to concede a point or two on occasion.

broncofan

11-14-2012, 03:59 AM

Stavros, you seem to have moved from an outright denial that such micro-management exists to the claim that it's okay because it's justified by the precautionary principle. Which is the usual justification for such interference. I've read the story to which you link. The restaurant in question was presumably already regulated, so the story is not exactly a poster child for the efficacity of regulation. Of course the same might be said had there been a free market in this restaurant's products (which is arguably irrelevant under the circumstances): as you say, and as I have already said on this thread, its self interest lies in best-serving its customers, giving them the best food it can without poisoning them. Given the nature of the product, in a free market, it might have explicitly warned customers that making the food taste as good as possible in some cases ran the risk of food poisoning, and customers could make their choice as they saw fit.

Btw, who's this "William Shakespeare, a poet and playwright" of whom you speak?
An8150,
What you say about the restaurant's incentives is a gross simplification and not I think consistent with reality. A restaurant is incentivized to make as much money as possible without subjecting itself to a lawsuit. This does not necessarily lead to the safest product possible, but the largest bottom line. As a result, a restaurant will think about the cost of taking certain precautions, the likelihood that lax food safety practices will result in food poisoning, the likelihood that if someone suffers food poisoning it's traced back to them, and the ensuing harm to their business as a result. People tend to undervalue those risks that result in longer term (and uncertain) harm and over-value the front-loaded benefits that would result from saving money based on an absence of safety requirements.

They might also be emboldened by the fact that there is nobody to detect lax food sanitation practices. Food sanitation is related to but not the same as food safety. For instance, perfectly harmless components, such as ground-up insects and rodent hairs make it into our food supply everyday. People may not get sick from such adulteration but it is unsavory.

A restaurant would have very little incentive to keep out such filth since these non-pathogenic contaminants would probably go unnoticed by the average consumer. You might argue that eating cockroaches is okay as long as you don't get sick or don't know about it....in which case I'd love to hear the argument.

By not encouraging compliance with regulatory standards and not managing the processes by which safety is maintained you tempt fate. Bad food sanitation leads to unsafe food in the long run. It also does not help if the detection comes too late and a restauranteur is insolvent.

Anyhow, by allowing the market to self-regulate you are promoting a policy that is reactive rather than proactive. When it comes to public health and disease transmission this is particularly dangerous. It is cavalier to leave food safety to individual proprietor's estimations as to how many potential patrons they'd alienate per case of E. Coli.

an8150

11-14-2012, 10:17 AM

broncofan, "What you say about the restaurant's incentives is a gross simplification and not I think consistent with reality. A restaurant is incentivized to make as much money as possible without subjecting itself to a lawsuit [correct, and the question for it, as for any business, is whether it seeks to maximise its revenue in the short-term come what may, or build goodwill over the longer term even at the expense of short-term gain; a restaurannt such as Raymond Blanc's would easily survive the fallout from the story to which Stavros links, because Blanc has a 35 or so year global reputation; a start-up would be less fortunate]. This does not necessarily lead to the safest product possible [careful, the safest product is not necessarily the best product, the best product is in the eye of the beholder], but the largest bottom line. As a result, a restaurant will think about the cost of taking certain precautions, the likelihood that lax food safety practices will result in food poisoning, the likelihood that if someone suffers food poisoning it's traced back to them, and the ensuing harm to their business as a result. People tend to undervalue those risks that result in longer term (and uncertain) harm and over-value the front-loaded benefits that would result from saving money based on an absence of safety requirements [and those are the restaurants, in a free market, most likely to fail, because they do not appreciate that goodwill comprises a million tiny things that can see you through bad publicity or a recession; I'm all in favour of failure, just as I love to see success].

They might also be emboldened by the fact that there is nobody to detect lax food sanitation practices. Food sanitation is related to but not the same as food safety. For instance, perfectly harmless components, such as ground-up insects and rodent hairs make it into our food supply everyday. People may not get sick from such adulteration but it is unsavory.

A restaurant would have very little incentive to keep out such filth since these non-pathogenic contaminants would probably go unnoticed by the average consumer. You might argue that eating cockroaches is okay as long as you don't get sick or don't know about it....in which case I'd love to hear the argument. [well now! what if I told you that I happened to know that food eaten by you in 50 of the restaurants you've eaten in in the last three years contained traces both of human faecal matter and ground-up insects? Humour me, set aside the fact that we don't know each other. The point is, I may even be right, and neither of us in fact will ever know. Plenty of things are unsavoury. The unclean hand you have to shake. The door handle used by 5,000 other people today. The bus seat formerly occupied by more urine-stained rough sleepers than you can shake a stick at. Even if such things, including unsavoury food in a restaurant, could be prevented by regulation and the precautionary principle (and currently they cannot, they are merely disincentivised) the only point would be a technical one, namely that we would be protected from something unsavoury that we didn't know about. Now, I don't dispute that any industry will have its sharp practitioners. I don't even say that in a free market the market will always find them out, although I think consumers applying their own self-interest to, say, restaurants, will probably do a better job than bureaucrats because the range of information and experiences available to the generality of, say, a restaurant's customers is fuller than that available to food safety bureaucrats, but I do say that the exercise in rational self-interest by a restaurant owner is certainly complex, but less cynically so than you've described. Many people, after all, take pride in their work. In the Raymond Blanc restaurant story, one of the striking aspects is that the restaurant, rather than supply the food as required by the food standards bureaucrats, has withdrawn it from sale because, served as required by the food standards bureaucrats, in the view of the restaurant's owners it's not tasty. In a sense, they are unrepentant, rather joyously so. In any event, is the prevention of that which is unsavoury now part of the remit of the precautionary principle? because if so, micro-regulation is going to get a lot more restrictive].

By not encouraging compliance with regulatory standards and not managing the processes by which safety is maintained you tempt fate [in fact regulation often encourages a "race to the bottom" among providers, because compliance with the basic legal requirement locks out new competitors and, after all, if you can say 'government approved' without doing any more, where is the incentive to do any better?]. Bad food sanitation leads to unsafe food in the long run. It also does not help if the detection comes too late and a restauranteur is insolvent [that's at least no more or less likely than with self-regulation in a free market].

Anyhow, by allowing the market to self-regulate you are promoting a policy that is reactive rather than proactive [it's pro-active in the sense I've described above, re. goodwill and the range of information available to customers, it's just that there are no official records, under that scenario, of how it's pro-active]. When it comes to public health and disease transmission this is particularly dangerous. It is cavalier to leave food safety to individual proprietor's estimations as to how many potential patrons they'd alienate per case of E. Coli."

Stavros

11-14-2012, 01:20 PM

[QUOTE=an8150;1235916]
Stavros, you seem to have moved from an outright denial that such micro-management exists to the claim that it's okay because it's justified by the precautionary principle.
-Precautionary measures do not constitute micro-management; your argument is that we are more micro-managed and taxed than ever before in history, my response has been to dispute that this is true. That we may be more subject to surveillance, through closed-circuit tv cameras on our streets, I think that is probably true.

The restaurant in question was presumably already regulated, so the story is not exactly a poster child for the efficacity of regulation.
-But that is not the point -I raised it because it exposed the difficulty of your hostility to 'micro-management' on a health issue where I assume your judgement would be that threats to health should be removed wherever possible. It is actually a difficult case because I assume many people have eaten that liver dish without falling ill and it is the kind of dish you would expect a Michelin-starred chef (albeit that particular Brasserie doesn't have such a star) to have tested many times. So its not about the efficacy of regulation, but the authorites responding to an issue as it arises, which is what they are there for. I agree that in a 'free market', whatever that means, the Brasserie, noting that several people have died/fallen ill after eating the dish would withdraw it from the menu (well, we assume this), but what you have to establish is that the population does not want their food industry regulated in this way, and that I am not sure of. In other words, there may be issues, public health being one of them, where the public actually wants regulations enforced, not withdrawn.

None of this dispensation existed under mediaeval monarchs, whose bureaucracies, whose ability to gather information and act on it, were minute and trivial compared to those of today.

I agree that serfdom was a moral and economic fact of life, but then so is the fact that we work for the government for about half the year (more or less, depending where you live). The distinction is one of like, not one of kind. You refer to the fact that under feudalism, property was (usually) held on sufferance. I would argue that nowadays the concept of property in the western world has been so debased by the terms on which it is held - that boiler you aren't allowed to decide where to locate, for instance, as to be meaningless. Eminent domain, in the US, is another example. Granted, life in the mediaeval era was nastier, more brutish and shorter than it is now, but then again the intervening period of the industrial revolution, as well as medical advances reducing child mortality rates, explain that difference.

As to comparing rates of taxation then and now, you say that "To compare the rate of taxation in the 14th century to what we pay today is meaningless without the context." But that makes my point for me: the context then was of a stunted government which, outside the ambit of the feudal settlement into which most people were born, had no impact on how they lit their mud hits, or where they located their fires within those mud huts, etc. The context now, by contrast, is of a much greater tax take which contributes to funding the micro-management of precisely those things (or their modern equivalent). We are better off, but in many respects less free. And we can be conscripted for military service.

Your attempt to defend your earlier claim that taxes in medieval England were a tiny proportion of what we pay now has not been advanced with any evidence; if we can agree that when a man and all he produces belongs to the noble Lord, and that constitues 100% of what he makes, it is hard to pay more in tax on top of that. But what seems obvious is that the complete absence of freedom itself seems to be a 'mere detail' to you, and because the serf is 'free to choose' where to put a fire in his hut maybe that 100% is wrong. Should we re-calibrate the man's freedom and grant him 1% of freedom to choose where to put the fire, leaving us with a figure of 99% paid in taxes, could it be 0.5% after all its only a fire -? This is sophistry, not history. You might as well claim that cotton pickin' slaves from the ole South had free accommodation, so what were they complaining about?

The problem is induced by the link you make between taxes and freedom in late capitalism, integral to the arguments of Hayek, to take one well-known example. The comparison with medieval England is not going to work because the context is different, the concept of freedom itself has changed from what it was at that time, in addition to which the powers that local barons and the Kings had have changed, as indeed have the powers of the Church and the Parish Council in which you once would have lived.

Your argument has not changed since Mrs Thatcher raised it in the 1970s, and that is based on the argument that people should pay less in tax so that they can decide what to do with the money they earn, rather than have the government decide for them, and on some issues she was right, and taxes were reduced, and she won four elections in a row on that basis. You will also note that not only did the richest people benefit most from her tax regime, her government reduced personal income tax, but then increased secondary taxation with increases on VAT, alcohol, petrol and tobacco, to take just four typical taxes, thereby increasing the tax burden in aggregate terms. Over the lifetime of the Thacher government the UK's maufacturing capacity was reduced by 25%, and the rise in unemployment that followed was paid for from the profits of North Sea oil. The privatisation of the railways has resulted in this 'privately run' industry now absorbing more public money in subsidy than was paid to British Rail as it was at the time, and the fare structure has become a labyrinth of charges few can understand; the costs of running a car/vehicle have increased, for private users and say, haulage businesses; it costs a lot more to smoke yourself into a hospital bed or the grave; and 20 odd years on from the privatisation of the gas industry, we are paying more for gas, with evidence that the 'free market' has led to gas companies fixing prices regardless of it, so that it is a case of 'free to fix' rather than 'free to choose'; and I had the benefit of a free university education but the current generation is expected to create a debt burden -their own private tax- before they have even graduated. Is this freedom?

The evidence we have suggests that the most libertarian government we have had in the UK in the 20th century, and its like-minded successors, did not reduce the tax burden, did not remove government subsidy from industry, and has not made the country safe from attack.

As I have said before, I think most people in this country do not object to paying taxes when the system is transparent and fair, and they can see that the money is indeed being spent on our defence, our health and education and the other uses to which taxes should be put; it is morally the right thing to do, because we all live here and share this island and its resources. These are all issues that can be, and are put to the public vote; if you think we should leave the European Union, NATO and 'go it alone' then you have the opportunity every day to campaign for it, and then ask yourself why nobody votes for it (because it would raise our taxes!) -being a sore loser doesn't win many votes.

hippifried

11-14-2012, 06:34 PM

Can't subject public safety to cost/benefit analysis. They have nothing to do with each other. Y'all've gotten off the subject of markets now, & moved into the realm of negligence. People shouldn't have to wait for the "market" to catch up with reality. If a business puts the public at risk, regardless of fault, they need to be shut immediately, until the problem gets fixed or they're gone. If someone knowingly puts people at risk for personal gain (cost benefit analysis), it's criminal. Nobody should have to put up with that kind of crap. People trump property. Always.

This is just one example of the many many many reasons that egoism can't work in the real world. It's just a pipe dream, based on a half baked crackpot theory.

broncofan

11-15-2012, 05:48 AM

an8150 said: "and those are the restaurants, in a free market, most likely to fail, because they do not appreciate that goodwill comprises a million tiny things that can see you through bad publicity or a recession; I'm all in favour of failure, just as I love to see success]."

I often have not followed up on your response because we are both offering our points of view and on questions such as this it doesn't help for me to retort by saying, "nu-uh" like a six year old kid. So I won't say nu-uh, but I don't think you're right.

You think companies would have the incentive to focus on the process by which disease is prevented, something seen as unnecessarily cumbersome by the regulated industries? People learn the hard way. Some businesses fail. On the other hand, some that institute bad policies either do not fail in the short run or do not fail at all.

Even if we were in agreement about what the incentives are, which we are not, there would also be the issue of people not responding as sensitively to the incentives that exist.

The market might respond by turning someone's Botulism dispensing factory into a failure, but the point is not to punish someone who has caused death and misery after the fact. I am sure the market's response would be enough to prevent that person from spreading disease but unfortunately people don't learn from the mistakes and failures of others so well as their own. As you point out the market does eventually prevent bad actors from staying in business, but I am skeptical that this would keep others from cropping up.

The Food and Drug Administration's thorough drug testing policy is one of the best examples I can think of of a cumbersome but necessary regulatory requirement. Quackery abounds in the field of medicine and the placebo effect is a tremendously powerful psychological force. People cannot tell on their own what is efficacious or not and individuals do not always notice when drugs cause insidious problems. Why does the FDA not approve drugs that are safe but ineffective? Because there is an opportunity cost for not getting appropriate treatment for serious illness.

Without stringent regulation of drugs, you would have poorly capitalized companies pitching products with unsupported claims, waiting until the evidence accumulated to sue them. Again, you might say how do you know that. The businesses have an incentive to not harm their image. But when you're dealing with hucksters, the corporate image is harmed in the long-term, IF they're discovered to be charlatans, but the profits accrue in the short-term. Don't they want the public's goodwill? That's what it will require to be a successful company over significant periods of time, but as John Maynard Keynes famously said "in the long-run we're all dead". Why shorten the cycle?

broncofan

11-15-2012, 06:55 AM

"[it's pro-active in the sense I've described above, re. goodwill and the range of information available to customers, it's just that there are no official records, under that scenario, of how it's pro-active]."

Yes, but you already said you are depending upon failure as a regulatory mechanism. I haven't summed my views enough and instead have tried to be too rhetorical so this is as reductive as I can get.

The incentives for businesses don't lead inexorably to caution.

When the incentives should lead to caution, such incentives are not always heeded.

The public is neither always informed nor always rational.

When businesses fail because they have been unsafe, this a small success propped on top of a giant failure. It is a reaction to something that could have been prevented.

Too many permutations here but none of them work out for you. The public is better at identifying failure than regulators? The public is diffuse, regulators use sophisticated equipment and develop an expertise in identifying and quantifying tolerance levels for risk. The public is comprised of people who not only don't know the full scope of the risks but do not have the capacity to understand the full nature of the risks. Or we could say, they're distracted. It is very difficult to think about in rational terms when you are thinking about getting the cheapest product. As Hippifried said, this cost/benefit analysis could get absurd and miss the point. The public might be acting "rationally" by buying a tube of toothpaste that is a dollar cheaper but more likely to cause cancer. You would probably say that by preventing them from making this awful choice, I am being paternalistic. But do you really hate your father that much that you'd encourage cancer just to spite him? Shame shame.

hippifried

11-15-2012, 02:11 PM

You would probably say that by preventing them from making this awful choice, I am being paternalistic. But do you really hate your father that much that you'd encourage cancer just to spite him? Shame shame.
Freud would be so proud.

an8150

11-27-2012, 11:34 PM

Stavros, "Precautionary measures do not constitute micro-management [we'll have to agree to disagree about that, although I think you'd be more intellectually honest were you to say that yes they do, but so what, because they are precautionary]; your argument is that we are more micro-managed and taxed than ever before in history ever before], my response has been to dispute that this is true. That we may be more subject to surveillance, through closed-circuit tv cameras on our streets, I think that is probably true.

The restaurant in question was presumably already regulated, so the story is not exactly a poster child for the efficacity of regulation.
-But that is not the point -I raised it because it exposed the difficulty of your hostility to 'micro-management' on a health issue where I assume your judgement would be that threats to health should be removed wherever possible [nope, and "should be removed" is a giveaway; I don't think you can imagine a world in which you're a free man, you're entire world view is based on utilitarian trade-offs which I find morally odious... you can't make an omelette, etc ]. It is actually a difficult case because I assume many people have eaten that liver dish without falling ill and it is the kind of dish you would expect a Michelin-starred chef (albeit that particular Brasserie doesn't have such a star) to have tested many times. So its not about the efficacy of regulation, but the authorites responding to an issue as it arises, which is what they are there for. I agree that in a 'free market', whatever that means [see above: try and conceive it], the Brasserie, noting that several people have died/fallen ill after eating the dish would withdraw it from the menu (well, we assume this) [I don't, see above; either way, in my view it's up to thje restaurant, or should be, and the grown-ups who patronise it], but what you have to establish is that the population does not want their food industry regulated in this way [no I don't; I agree and have agreed numerous times on this thread that most people are cool with your levers and pulleys, legislated incentives and disincentives and utilitarian trade-offs. Indeed, by saying that this is what I have to establish you make my point for me that I am not free because lots of other people demand that I should not be...which takes us back almost to where this thread began, with trish claiming there was no need for Rand's philosophy because the communists had gone away, to which I replied, even at that early stage, that the evidence of this thread was to the contrary], and that I am not sure of [no need to be unsure, you lot have won, and keep winning; people like me keep trying to fight you off]. In other words, there may be issues, public health being one of them, where the public actually wants regulations enforced, not withdrawn [yes, yes and yes; btw, my reference to government interference in what you "ingest" was intended to encompass booze and drugs; care to comment?].

None of this dispensation existed under mediaeval monarchs, whose bureaucracies, whose ability to gather information and act on it, were minute and trivial compared to those of today.

I agree that serfdom was a moral and economic fact of life, but then so is the fact that we work for the government for about half the year (more or less, depending where you live). The distinction is one of like, not one of kind. You refer to the fact that under feudalism, property was (usually) held on sufferance. I would argue that nowadays the concept of property in the western world has been so debased by the terms on which it is held - that boiler you aren't allowed to decide where to locate, for instance, as to be meaningless. Eminent domain, in the US, is another example. Granted, life in the mediaeval era was nastier, more brutish and shorter than it is now, but then again the intervening period of the industrial revolution, as well as medical advances reducing child mortality rates, explain that difference.

As to comparing rates of taxation then and now, you say that "To compare the rate of taxation in the 14th century to what we pay today is meaningless without the context." But that makes my point for me: the context then was of a stunted government which, outside the ambit of the feudal settlement into which most people were born, had no impact on how they lit their mud hits, or where they located their fires within those mud huts, etc. The context now, by contrast, is of a much greater tax take which contributes to funding the micro-management of precisely those things (or their modern equivalent). We are better off, but in many respects less free. And we can be conscripted for military service.

Your attempt to defend your earlier claim that taxes in medieval England were a tiny proportion of what we pay now has not been advanced with any evidence [I can't be bothered to go back through the thread, but I thought you'd conceded that but contended it was irrelevant given the nature of feudal indentured servitude; either way as far as I can tell you are cool with a certain level of indentured servitude. I'm not. Again we'll have to agree to differ]; if we can agree that when a man and all he produces belongs to the noble Lord, and that constitues 100% of what he makes, it is hard to pay more in tax on top of that [a fair point, but we're left with the unfortunate conclusion that modern social democratic governments let us keep that proportion of the fruits of our labour that they see fit in just the same way as did feudal monarchs; as I said above, it's a difference of like not one of kind, and the difference of like is not that great either where the government spends 50% of a nation's earnings]. But what seems obvious is that the complete absence of freedom itself seems to be a 'mere detail' to you, and because the serf is 'free to choose' where to put a fire in his hut maybe that 100% is wrong. Should we re-calibrate the man's freedom and grant him 1% of freedom to choose where to put the fire, leaving us with a figure of 99% paid in taxes, could it be 0.5% after all its only a fire -? This is sophistry, not history [more properly, it's an argument about the precise degree of servitude acceptable to you. No degree of servitude is acceptable to me]. You might as well claim that cotton pickin' slaves from the ole South had free accommodation, so what were they complaining about? [that's a sloppy comparison]

The problem is induced by the link you make between taxes and freedom in late capitalism, integral to the arguments of Hayek, to take one well-known example. The comparison with medieval England is not going to work because the context is different, the concept of freedom itself has changed from what it was at that time [in the sense that "freeman" might carry with it the connotation of "not a serf", yes, and the political theory of liberty was largely unknown or in its infancy. Actually, I'm inclined to throw your cotton picken slaves comparison back at you here: just because Locke, Mill and Rand were unknown to Wat Tyler, what was he complaining about? Or something. Either way, liberty is an eternal value, predating all states and government, whatever one's state of knowledge as to what it might entail; borrowing freely from an arch enemy: "man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains"], in addition to which the powers that local barons and the Kings had have changed, as indeed have the powers of the Church and the Parish Council in which you once would have lived [sure, I say they are more sophisticated, better enforced, broader and deeper, and, importantly, subtler, but again, that's just quibbling about the precise degree of acceptable servitude].

Your argument has not changed since Mrs Thatcher raised it in the 1970s, and that is based on the argument that people should pay less in tax so that they can decide what to do with the money they earn, rather than have the government decide for them, and on some issues she was right, and taxes were reduced, and she won four elections in a row on that basis. You will also note that not only did the richest people benefit most from her tax regime, her government [sorry, pet peeve: it was her ministry, not her government] reduced personal income tax, but then increased secondary taxation with increases on VAT, alcohol, petrol and tobacco, to take just four typical taxes, thereby increasing the tax burden in aggregate terms [the Thatcher ministries are problematic for people like me; on the one hand, they are the closest thing we've had to government believing, and to some extent legislating, on the basis of a core belief in liberty. On the other hand, that's really not saying very much given the Butskellite prior consensus and the arguably identical Keynesianism that we've had recently]. Over the lifetime of the Thacher government the UK's maufacturing capacity was reduced by 25%, and the rise in unemployment that followed was paid for from the profits of North Sea oil. The privatisation of the railways has resulted in this 'privately run' industry now absorbing more public money in subsidy than was paid to British Rail as it was at the time, and the fare structure has become a labyrinth of charges few can understand; the costs of running a car/vehicle have increased, for private users and say, haulage businesses; it costs a lot more to smoke yourself into a hospital bed or the grave; and 20 odd years on from the privatisation [a misnomer; these are to some extent state-licensed monopolies but entirely state sub-contractors; no libertarian considers them to be free market solutions] of the gas industry, we are paying more for gas, with evidence that the 'free market' has led to gas companies fixing prices regardless of it [there's no free market in gas supply in the UK, merely somewhat competitive government sub-contractors], so that it is a case of 'free to fix' rather than 'free to choose'; and I had the benefit of a free university education but the current generation is expected to create a debt burden -their own private tax- before they have even graduated. Is this freedom? [nope, it's a range of consequences produced by successive governments' monopoly on legitimate violence; you're confusing the misplaced association of successive British governments with free market initiatives with what would actually happen in a free market. As I say above, and as you seem to accept, you cannot imagine what a free market might look like. You're also confusing liberty with ability/disability]

The evidence we have suggests that the most libertarian government we have had in the UK in the 20th century, and its like-minded successors, did not reduce the tax burden, did not remove government subsidy from industry, and has not made the country safe from attack [yes, as I say, the Thatcher ministries really weren't the free market in tooth and claw nutters the Polly Toynbees of this world would have us believe. Would that they had been]. .

As I have said before, I think most people in this country do not object to paying taxes when the system is transparent and fair, and they can see that the money is indeed being spent on our defence, our health and education and the other uses to which taxes should be put; it is morally the right thing to do, because we all live here and share this island and its resources. These are all issues that can be, and are put to the public vote; if you think we should leave the European Union, NATO and 'go it alone' then you have the opportunity every day to campaign for it [aside from mild intellectual stimulation,what do you think I'm doing here?], and then ask yourself why nobody votes for it (because it would raise our taxes! [shrinking government would raise our taxes???] -being a sore loser doesn't win many votes [indeed not, pork does, though].

an8150

11-28-2012, 12:03 AM

an8150

11-28-2012, 12:09 AM

broncofan, "The public might be acting "rationally" by buying a tube of toothpaste that is a dollar cheaper but more likely to cause cancer. You would probably say that by preventing them from making this awful choice, I am being paternalistic. But do you really hate your father that much that you'd encourage cancer just to spite him? Shame shame."

The shame is on you, for your unexpected cheapness in writing those words. Moreover, it's a sloppy comparison. You and your fellow travellers are not my parents. Politicians are not my parents. Furthermore, as an adult in middle age, I don't expect my actual parents to behave paternalistically towards me. They may be concerned about me, but since I am no longer a child in their care, my mistakes are my own to make.

Stavros

11-28-2012, 08:41 AM

[QUOTE=an8150;1241790]

Stavros, "Precautionary measures do not constitute micro-management [we'll have to agree to disagree about that, although I think you'd be more intellectually honest were you to say that yes they do, but so what, because they are precautionary];
--but that would depend on how you define the balance between precautionary measures and what you call 'micro-management' so it is not a matter of me being dishonest at all, and since we probably don't even agree on the difference between management and micro-management, this exchange is futile, unless of course you are not just right but absolutely right, which I suspect is what you believe.

I don't think you can imagine a world in which you're a free man, you're entire world view is based on utilitarian trade-offs which I find morally odious... you can't make an omelette, etc
--This is sophistry -you suggest that the concept of a 'free man' is an absolute value, so any impingement on that 'freedom' becomes a negative interference in your life precisely because you claim freedom is an absolute -and crucially, an individual- condition that should not be interfered with: this enables you to introduce the concept of 'utilitarian trade-offs' as a perversion of individual freedom which suggests that either you only stop at a red light when you feel like it or because you can deduce not doing so might kill you; or you abide by the rules of the road which limit your freedom and you thus in practice subscribe to a 'utilitarian trade-off'.

The fundamental problem is that freedom is not an individual, but a social concept: it is about the formation of relations between people and is derived from the concept of friendship, so that an infringement of freedom is in fact an infringement of a basic human activity, which is to gather together people in mutually beneficial relationships.

Either way, liberty is an eternal value, predating all states and government, whatever one's state of knowledge as to what it might entail; borrowing freely from an arch enemy: "man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains"
-Liberty is a different concept from freedom, and is not an eternal value but one that has developed out of the experience of politics since Sumerian times. It counterposes the power of governments, monarchs, dictators, religions etc to the desires and needs of society, a group of individuals who relate to each other. As you know, there are concepts of negative and positive liberty and these have developed with the modern state, but it is common for people to confuse liberty with freedom.

Your argument has not changed since Mrs Thatcher raised it in the 1970s...You will also note that not only did the richest people benefit most from her tax regime, her government [sorry, pet peeve: it was her ministry, not her government]
-more sophistry -you know as well as I do that the Queen does not choose who is going to be a Minister in her government even if the Minister cannot take office without it, its a formality so for you to nit-pick when you knew what I mean is either excessive or you are shy in calling for the removal of the monarchy.

a misnomer; these are to some extent state-licensed monopolies but entirely state sub-contractors; no libertarian considers them to be free market solutions...there's no free market in gas supply in the UK, merely somewhat competitive government sub-contractors
--I take this as an example of the futility of utopian desire -even if the UK government did not control any aspect of the gas industry, did not tax it, and just opened the market to any gas company to provide a service based on customer choice, how would you trade in gas from Algeria or Russia if the origin of the supply was not also beyond the control of the governments in those states? It is like permament revolution, unless there is an end to all government, you only need one link in the value chain to be controlled by government and your 'freedom' is impinged.

an8150

11-28-2012, 11:21 AM

Stavros,
--but that would depend on how you define the balance between precautionary measures and what you call 'micro-management' so it is not a matter of me being dishonest at all, and since we probably don't even agree on the difference between management and micro-management, this exchange is futile, unless of course you are not just right but absolutely right, which I suspect is what you believe.

I don't think you can imagine a world in which you're a free man, you're entire world view is based on utilitarian trade-offs which I find morally odious... you can't make an omelette, etc
--This is sophistry -you suggest that the concept of a 'free man' is an absolute value [correct], so any impingement on that 'freedom' becomes a negative interference in your life precisely because you claim freedom is an absolute -and crucially, an individual- condition that should not be interfered with: this enables you to introduce the concept of 'utilitarian trade-offs' as a perversion of individual freedom which suggests that either you only stop at a red light when you feel like it or because you can deduce not doing so might kill you [there have been some interesting experiments in abolishing red lights, which as I understand have tended to show that road users become more cautious. I don't have a problem with rules of the road, though, I merely say that they should be a matter of contract rather than criminal law]; or you abide by the rules of the road which limit your freedom and you thus in practice subscribe to a 'utilitarian trade-off'.

The fundamental problem is that freedom is not an individual, but a social concept: it is about the formation of relations between people and is derived from the concept of friendship, so that an infringement of freedom is in fact an infringement of a basic human activity, which is to gather together people in mutually beneficial relationships [I think you've gone off the rails there, although I have some difficulty following what you've written. I [I]think you've lost sight of the distinction between voluntary interraction and coerced behaviour].

Either way, liberty is an eternal value, predating all states and government, whatever one's state of knowledge as to what it might entail; borrowing freely from an arch enemy: "man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains"
-Liberty is a different concept from freedom [if there's a difference, it's the same as that between loving someone and being in love with someone], and is not an eternal value but one that has developed out of the experience of politics since Sumerian times [I suspect you see politics as positively desirable; to me it just about amounts to a regrettable necessity, and only in very limited circumstances; politics superimposes itself on liberty, liberty is our natural condition]. It counterposes the power of governments, monarchs, dictators, religions etc to the desires and needs of society, a group of individuals who relate to each other. As you know, there are concepts of negative and positive liberty and these have developed with the modern state [and as you know, positive liberty is an abuse of language; it's what I've referred to previously as the failure to distinguish liberty from (dis)ability], but it is common for people to confuse liberty with freedom.

Your argument has not changed since Mrs Thatcher raised it in the 1970s...You will also note that not only did the richest people benefit most from her tax regime, her government [sorry, pet peeve: it was her ministry, not her government]
-more sophistry -you know as well as I do that the Queen does not choose who is going to be a Minister in her government even if the Minister cannot take office without it, its a formality so for you to nit-pick when you knew what I mean is either excessive or you are shy in calling for the removal of the monarchy. [I'm ambivalent towards Brenda, contemptuous towards her son and heir; the gravamen of my pet peeve is that the modern tendency to refer to a premier's ministry as his or her government subtly psychologically endorses the increasing presidential tendencies of modern British prime ministers, and few of us wish to see a president Thatcher/Blair/Brown (delete as desired)]

a misnomer; these are to some extent state-licensed monopolies but entirely state sub-contractors; no libertarian considers them to be free market solutions...there's no free market in gas supply in the UK, merely somewhat competitive government sub-contractors
--I take this as an example of the futility of utopian desire -even if the UK government did not control any aspect of the gas industry, did not tax it, and just opened the market to any gas company to provide a service based on customer choice, how would you trade in gas from Algeria or Russia if the origin of the supply was not also beyond the control of the governments in those states? It is like permament revolution, unless there is an end to all government, you only need one link in the value chain to be controlled by government and your 'freedom' is impinged. [you're moving the goalposts somewhat: my observations on this point were intended to respond to the claim that such a free market existed and its failings were therefore justifiably criticised as failings of a free market. It's actually gerrymandered state capitalism. By all means criticise its failings, but don't attribute them to the failings of a free market. But to respond to your moving of the goalposts, as I understand it, you worry that Britons couldn't buy gas from Russia without government-to-government negotiation. Putting aside for one moment the fact that that amounts to nothing more than the claim that because the Russians have a protection racket, we need to have one, too, they'd be cutting their noses to spite their faces if they refused to sell us gas just because we didn't have a government department to oil the wheels. That's not to say they wouldn't do that, but then they could do it anyway. Indeed, I think they've done it with the Ukrainians.]

an8150

11-28-2012, 11:23 AM

Assuming this and other similar photographs have not been debunked, I call savages:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/blood-on-the-tarmac-what-drives-young-palestinians-in-gaza-to-kill-six-informers-and-tow-their-corpses-around-the-streets-8346406.html

Prospero

11-28-2012, 12:08 PM

There are indeed places in the modern world where the rule of government do not apply and where there are no laws. I listened to a BBC report about one this week. A young man, a refugee, had fled his home country somewhere in Africa and had been captured in the depths of the Sinai desert by - I think - Bedouin who were holding him hostage until has family paid thousands in money to win his freedom. The young man said he'd been tortured. And that his family could not raise the money to win his a freedom. His expected fate - already meted out to many other similar hostages was to be doused with petrol and burned alive. This was how the kidnappers exercised their freedom. Their inalienable rights to liberty.

Now it is less likely that this would happen in a place where there were laws and rules and Government regulation. In Sinai, not covered by any effective laws, this has happened to many people and, by now, may well have happened to this poor soul. His freedom versus the freedom of his captors. Incidentally the kidnapper was also interviewed on the telephone by the BBC reporter. He said he has to do this because it was how he made a living. If the ransom was not paid, he would burn the young man.

Regulations and laws prevent this being an acceptable way to exercise your freedom in most parts of the world. Such laws of course impinge on the freedom of individuals such as this kidnapper and his associates. Perhaps such laws, should be scrapped on the higher altar of freedom.

When I quoted Hegel a weeks ago the naive idealist who is arguing here for total liberty accused me of being hateful. I was, in fact referencing Isaiah Berlin's use of this phrase in his essays about the challenge a civilised society has in reconciling seemingly irreconcilable concepts - including liberty and societal rules. The example i quote above is - to me - a perfect example of the need for law, for rules, for the hand of government, to limit man's capacity for cruelty.

an8150

11-28-2012, 01:04 PM

As the in-house niaive idealist, I must ask whether people are ever kidnapped, tortured, burned alive and murdered in England?

Besides, Prospero, you're confusing the badlands of the earth where there be dragons with civil societies where the writ of the law runs. Libertarians don't say there should be no law, much less no criminal law (although I think anarcho-capitalists, if I understand their position correctly, argue that all law is enforced privately on a micro scale), and we certainly don't say that freedom means freedom to kidnap etc. Moreover minarchist libertarians such as I argue that the only legitimate role for the state is collective self-defence against aggressors. The unfortunate to whom you refer wandered off the reservation to a dangerous place, presumably unarmed, certainly outnumbered and found himself confronted by savages who know no rule of law or property rights and who, as a result, make their living in the manner you described. My faith in mankind is such that, given property rights upheld by the rule of law, my utopia would not resemble such a place because there would be no need for it. While many have the capacity for violence, most humans are not wantonly cruel in the way you describe. Still, it's instructive to see Hobbes' spirit living on.

hippifried

11-28-2012, 03:26 PM

hippifried, "Can't subject public safety to cost/benefit analysis [so you'd be prepared to see global GDP spent on, say, closing down a dodgy restaurant or treatment for a woman's diabetes?]. They have nothing to do with each other [you may not like it, and in fact it doesn't matter whether you like it, because will remain true nevertheless, but everything costs something]. Y'all've gotten off the subject of markets now, & moved into the realm of negligence. People shouldn't have to wait for the "market" to catch up with reality [for reality, see: my comments above. Plus, what do you think a market is, if not reality? What did you think you meant when you typed this last sentence?]. If a business puts the public at risk, regardless of fault, they need to be shut immediately [all cars place their buyers, and anyone in the vicinity of those cars, at risk; should all car manufacturers be closed?], until the problem gets fixed or they're gone. If someone knowingly puts people at risk for personal gain (cost benefit analysis), it's criminal. Nobody should have to put up with that kind of crap. People trump property. Always [assuming absolute property rights, what if A says of his priceless Stradivarius that he wishes it were saved first from a wrecked cruise liner? Do you propose that his wishes are ignored and he is forcibly prioritised over the instrument?].

This is just one example of the many many many reasons that egoism can't work in the real world. It's just a pipe dream, based on a half baked crackpot theory. "
I have no problem at all with the "global GDP" being spent on treating & preventing the spread of disease. Yeah everything costs something, but so what? Smallpox no longer exists in nature, & private entrepreneurship had nothing to do with that result. It was collusion between governments, spending tax monies, & forcing compulsory vaccinations. There was no financial reward. I have the scar. My children, grandchildren, & great grandchildren do not. It's not necessary for them because the cheapskates, with all their excuses & phony whining about "liberty", were pushed aside & ignored.

I know what a market is, what it can & cannot do, & what it will & will not do. Like always, I meant exactly what I said. There's nothing between the lines. I speak plain English, & refuse to converse in "Rand-speak".

There's a demand for cars. The odds of personal injury from them is almost nil for someone who doesn't voluntarily participate in that mode of transportation. There's no demand at all for botulism, sponge form encephalitis, or deadly e-coli. It's just another bogus analogy, although, the common denominator is regulation. That's how we use the government to "defend" us against the negligence of others in regard to known issues that are preventable.

I don't & won't assume "absolute property rights" because there are no such thing as "property rights" to begin with. Property has no rights, & people don't have more rights than others because they claim ownership of property. If some idiot wants to risk his life to retrieve his fiddle from the sinking ship, then he better be able to swim because there's no reason to hold the lifeboat for him. If his actions can somehow put others at higher risk, then yeah, he gets forced. People trump property. Always.

I'll continue to stick to that last statement of mine. I have yet to see a rebuttal for it.

an8150

11-28-2012, 04:53 PM

Stavros

11-28-2012, 06:47 PM

[QUOTE=an8150;1242000]Stavros,
But if the government telling you which lightbulbs to use, and where to put your boiler, doesn't constitute micro-management, I don't know what does. Some years ago, a friend of mine obtained a visa to visit North Korea. He told me that in every home, there was a picture of the Dear Leader hanging in the same place in the living room. And the nub of that was: every such picture was required to hang from the wall at precisely the same angle. Does that pass your test for micro-management?
- a) I would assume that micro-management covers every aspect of daily life so no, I am not micro-managed, and anyway neither of us are compelled to purchase any kind of light-bulb, there was a time when candles were the principal form of illumination at night-time, they are still available for purchase on the open market;
b) I do not live in North Korea. And what message was I receiving when I was in Conservative Party Central Office in London in 1986 and there was a portrait of Margaret Thatcher on the wall behind the reception, much as one sees portraits of the Queen in public buildings in the UK, or Mao Zedong in China --?

there have been some interesting experiments in abolishing red lights, which as I understand have tended to show that road users become more cautious. I don't have a problem with rules of the road, though, I merely say that they should be a matter of contract rather than criminal law
-I cannot agree with this, as the covenant we enter into that has created the modern state has endowed government to regulate things such as the use of the road, and governments are democratically accountable; and moreover from what I have seen there are people who should never be allowed behind the wheel of a car drunk or sober, and certainy drunk drivers do not act with caution.

-The fundamental problem is that freedom is not an individual, but a social concept: it is about the formation of relations between people and is derived from the concept of friendship, so that an infringement of freedom is in fact an infringement of a basic human activity, which is to gather together people in mutually beneficial relationships think you've lost sight of the distinction between voluntary interraction and coerced behaviour
-Not at all, you are just reluctant to define freedom because it will not support your 'minarchist' ideology.
-Liberty is a different concept from freedom [if there's a difference, it's the same as that between loving someone and being in love with someone], and is not an eternal value but one that has developed out of the experience of politics since Sumerian times [I suspect you see politics as positively desirable; to me it just about amounts to a regrettable necessity, and only in very limited circumstances; politics superimposes itself on liberty, liberty is our natural condition]. It counterposes the power of governments, monarchs, dictators, religions etc to the desires and needs of society, a group of individuals who relate to each other. As you know, there are concepts of negative and positive liberty and these have developed with the modern state [and as you know, positive liberty is an abuse of language; it's what I've referred to previously as the failure to distinguish liberty from (dis)ability], but it is common for people to confuse liberty with freedom.
-No, liberty is not the natural condition of humankind, but freedom is, because people are not -in most normal circumstances- born alone. It is the simple fact of being born into a collection of humans beings that generates the concept of freedom as the association of friends with a common purpose, such as survival in a hostile environment.

you know as well as I do that the Queen does not choose who is going to be a Minister in her government even if the Minister cannot take office without it, its a formality so for you to nit-pick when you knew what I mean is either excessive or you are shy in calling for the removal of the monarchy. [I'm ambivalent towards Brenda, contemptuous towards her son and heir; the gravamen of my pet peeve is that the modern tendency to refer to a premier's ministry as his or her government subtly psychologically endorses the increasing presidential tendencies of modern British prime ministers, and few of us wish to see a president Thatcher/Blair/Brown (delete as desired)]
-so suddenly your minarchism is mediated because you don't actually dislike Queen Elizabeth? Either you approve of the monarchy or you don't, to maintain a structure that is opposed to everything you claim to believe in weakens your argument. As for the arguments about Prime Ministers behaving like Presidents, how old is it? Even the claims made about Harold Wilson were predated by Churchill's behaviour in the Wartime coalition.

[you're moving the goalposts somewhat: my observations on this point were intended to respond to the claim that such a free market existed and its failings were therefore justifiably criticised as failings of a free market. It's actually gerrymandered state capitalism. By all means criticise its failings, but don't attribute them to the failings of a free market. But to respond to your moving of the goalposts, as I understand it, you worry that Britons couldn't buy gas from Russia without government-to-government negotiation. Putting aside for one moment the fact that that amounts to nothing more than the claim that because the Russians have a protection racket, we need to have one, too, they'd be cutting their noses to spite their faces if they refused to sell us gas just because we didn't have a government department to oil the wheels. That's not to say they wouldn't do that, but then they could do it anyway. Indeed, I think they've done it with the Ukrainians
-I think you misunderstood my analogy which was one in which your free market was established in the UK so that we, as consumers made decisions about our gas supplies without the interference of the government which had by this time absented itself from interfering in the market. However, if this free market did not exist in either Algeria or Russia, then as consumers we would still be dependent on state monopolies or goods whose price and delivery were subject to political manipulation rather than market regulation -in this sense and in a global economy, the concept of free markets is utopian.

It is also the case that if there is a profitable market in kidnappings, then they will take place, and as you know there have indeed been kidnapppings across Latin America, Africa and India, many of them brutal. But, if you are opposed to the operations of the market in this trade, I think you should explain why. there was, at one time, a thriving market in the sale and purchase of human beings, it was called Slavery. If it emerges that you actually believe in the concept of justice, maybe even of fairness, then you must explain how the choices made by an individual in a free market operate if he or she is not allowed to buy and sell or kidnap people, or for exampe, oil and freight tankers plying the seas off the coast of East Africa. As Don Corleone might have said, after all, 'Its not personal, just business'.

Once you begin to mediate the choices people make in the market, are you not infringing their liberty?

Stavros

11-28-2012, 07:03 PM

There are indeed places in the modern world where the rule of government do not apply and where there are no laws. I listened to a BBC report about one this week. A young man, a refugee, had fled his home country somewhere in Africa and had been captured in the depths of the Sinai desert by - I think - Bedouin who were holding him hostage until has family paid thousands in money to win his freedom. The young man said he'd been tortured. And that his family could not raise the money to win his a freedom. His expected fate - already meted out to many other similar hostages was to be doused with petrol and burned alive. This was how the kidnappers exercised their freedom. Their inalienable rights to liberty...
Regulations and laws prevent this being an acceptable way to exercise your freedom in most parts of the world. Such laws of course impinge on the freedom of individuals such as this kidnapper and his associates. Perhaps such laws, should be scrapped on the higher altar of freedom.

When I quoted Hegel a weeks ago the naive idealist who is arguing here for total liberty accused me of being hateful. I was, in fact referencing Isaiah Berlin's use of this phrase in his essays about the challenge a civilised society has in reconciling seemingly irreconcilable concepts - including liberty and societal rules. The example i quote above is - to me - a perfect example of the need for law, for rules, for the hand of government, to limit man's capacity for cruelty.

Kant not Hegel (out of the crooked timber of humanity etc, also the title of the book by Berlin).

You don't see kidnapping as a business then, Prospero?

One of the problems that the minarchists have is that they believe most government is both unnecessary, and an infringement of their liberty; the debate to me can often turn on the concepts of justice and fairness, not just in the debate between John Rawls and either Nozick or Hayek, but because in a broader sense, whether it is about markets or other activities, human beings have a sense of what is fair and what is not. This may change over time, and may not be the same in all societies -some societies believe execution is a fair punishment for murder, others do not. Your other issue is that when Hobbes argued as you do that the creation of a state should actively prevent acts of cruelty and violence within society, the state that follows may gradually acquire more powers than you expected it to when you agreed to the covenant, but then Hobbes was not a democrat. One final thought, can we live in a free society if money continues to exist? Would the abolition of money create more freedom, would it curtail it?

Prospero

11-28-2012, 10:52 PM

Indeed Kant...

hippifried

11-29-2012, 02:56 AM

You've answered a series of questions there, hippifried, but none of them is a response to the questions I posed. Why have you purported to answer my questions when in fact answering other, different questions? Did you think I wouldn't notice?

I answered all your questions, & the lame assumptions too. Your inability to see past the trivial is not my problem. I'm content to keep on topic, & see no reason to get tangled up in the detailed minutia of hypotheticals. Everybody can cite an anecdote, or make one up, on behalf of the point they're trying to make. That's why anecdotes aren't acceptable evidence. They just get in the way & the point gets lost in the shuffle. The tactic works on some people, but not on me.

an8150

11-29-2012, 11:45 AM

an8150

11-29-2012, 12:24 PM

Stavros, "b) I do not live in North Korea. And what message was I receiving when I was in Conservative Party Central Office in London in 1986 and there was a portrait of Margaret Thatcher on the wall behind the reception, much as one sees portraits of the Queen in public buildings in the UK, or Mao Zedong in China --? [are you seriously comparing my North Korean example with those two things?]

there have been some interesting experiments in abolishing red lights, which as I understand have tended to show that road users become more cautious. I don't have a problem with rules of the road, though, I merely say that they should be a matter of contract rather than criminal law
-I cannot agree with this, as the covenant we enter into that has created the modern state has endowed government to regulate things such as the use of the road [I haven't entered into any such covenant, and although I agree that most people agree with you, I don't suppose many of them have ever given it a first or second thought, so much as they just accept things as they are and cannot imagine anything else; but I think we've covered this ground already], and governments are democratically accountable; and moreover from what I have seen there are people who should never be allowed behind the wheel of a car drunk or sober, and certainy drunk drivers do not act with caution [that may well often be true, but if so traffic lights won't make the blindest bit of difference to them].

-The fundamental problem is that freedom is not an individual, but a social concept: it is about the formation of relations between people and is derived from the concept of friendship [my impression is you're making an etymological argument, possibly from ancient Greece; would you care to develop it? certainly, my concept of freedom has nothing to do with my friends....], so that an infringement of freedom is in fact an infringement of a basic human activity, which is to gather together people in mutually beneficial relationships [I think you've gone off the rails there, although I have some difficulty following what you've written. I think you've lost sight of the distinction between voluntary interraction and coerced behaviour
-Not at all, you are just reluctant to define freedom because it will not support your 'minarchist' ideology [have I been reluctant define freedom? It's quite simple: the absence of coercion. Liberty ditto].
-Liberty is a different concept from freedom [if there's a difference, it's the same as that between loving someone and being in love with someone], and is not an eternal value but one that has developed out of the experience of politics since Sumerian times [I suspect you see politics as positively desirable; to me it just about amounts to a regrettable necessity, and only in very limited circumstances; politics superimposes itself on liberty, liberty is our natural condition]. It counterposes the power of governments, monarchs, dictators, religions etc to the desires and needs of society, a group of individuals who relate to each other. As you know, there are concepts of negative and positive liberty and these have developed with the modern state [and as you know, positive liberty is an abuse of language; it's what I've referred to previously as the failure to distinguish liberty from (dis)ability], but it is common for people to confuse liberty with freedom.
-No, liberty is not the natural condition of humankind, but freedom is, because people are not -in most normal circumstances- born alone [since I see no distinction between freedom and liberty, I don't understand the point you are making here]. It is the simple fact of being born into a collection of humans beings that generates the concept of freedom as the association of friends with a common purpose [a non sequitur, I think], such as survival in a hostile environment [this can be cooperative or it can be coerced].

you know as well as I do that the Queen does not choose who is going to be a Minister in her government even if the Minister cannot take office without it, its a formality so for you to nit-pick when you knew what I mean is either excessive or you are shy in calling for the removal of the monarchy. [I'm ambivalent towards Brenda, contemptuous towards her son and heir; the gravamen of my pet peeve is that the modern tendency to refer to a premier's ministry as his or her government subtly psychologically endorses the increasing presidential tendencies of modern British prime ministers, and few of us wish to see a president Thatcher/Blair/Brown (delete as desired)]
-so suddenly your minarchism is mediated [you mean diminished, in some sense?] because you don't actually dislike Queen Elizabeth [I neither like nor dislike her; I am ambivalent about her in her professional capacity]? Either you approve of the monarchy or you don't [if I were designing from scratch a constitution for 21st century Britain, I wouldn't include a monarchy in it, but we are where we are and, while I agree that the monarchy has an unfortunate role in cementing a lack of social mobility, I think there are much greater and more immediate problems than who is head of state and, indeed, whether we have a head of state], to maintain a structure that is opposed to everything you claim to believe in weakens your argument [see my previous comment: there are far greater, more urgent enemies of freedom than a hereditary monarch]. As for the arguments about Prime Ministers behaving like Presidents, how old is it? Even the claims made about Harold Wilson were predated by Churchill's behaviour in the Wartime coalition. [for sure; AJP Taylor once wrote that Lloyd George was the closest thing we ever had to a Napoleon; my point was no more or less than that few of us wish for an elected president, if that means Thatcher, Blair (Patten? Mandelson?), so why assist the inflated egos of No.10 by referring to their ministries as their governments?]

[you're moving the goalposts somewhat: my observations on this point were intended to respond to the claim that such a free market existed and its failings were therefore justifiably criticised as failings of a free market. It's actually gerrymandered state capitalism. By all means criticise its failings, but don't attribute them to the failings of a free market. But to respond to your moving of the goalposts, as I understand it, you worry that Britons couldn't buy gas from Russia without government-to-government negotiation. Putting aside for one moment the fact that that amounts to nothing more than the claim that because the Russians have a protection racket, we need to have one, too, they'd be cutting their noses to spite their faces if they refused to sell us gas just because we didn't have a government department to oil the wheels. That's not to say they wouldn't do that, but then they could do it anyway. Indeed, I think they've done it with the Ukrainians
-I think you misunderstood my analogy which was one in which your free market was established in the UK so that we, as consumers made decisions about our gas supplies without the interference of the government which had by this time absented itself from interfering in the market. However, if this free market did not exist in either Algeria or Russia, then as consumers we would still be dependent on state monopolies or goods whose price and delivery were subject to political manipulation rather than market regulation -in this sense and in a global economy, the concept of free markets is utopian [correct. btw, I keep being called the utopian and the (niaive) idealist, as if those are bad things; I thought it was you lot who wanted to create the new jerusalem!].

It is also the case that if there is a profitable market in kidnappings, then they will take place, and as you know there have indeed been kidnapppings across Latin America, Africa and India, many of them brutal. But, if you are opposed to the operations of the market in this trade, I think you should explain why [seriously? how about we start with the non-aggression principle?]. there was, at one time, a thriving market in the sale and purchase of human beings, it was called Slavery. If it emerges that you actually believe in the concept of justice [as a process, yes; it is not, as I suspect you believe, an outcome], maybe even of fairness [it means even-handedness; as a concept in law it means, or should mean, that people are treated equally by the law, as a matter of the law's process], then you must explain how the choices made by an individual in a free market operate if he or she is not allowed to buy and sell or kidnap people [that would be the non-aggression principle again], or for exampe, oil and freight tankers plying the seas off the coast of East Africa [I'm sorry, are you saying that oil tankers are engaged in activity as morally odious as kidnapping/buying/selling people?]. As Don Corleone might have said, after all, 'Its not personal, just business'.

Prospero

11-29-2012, 02:11 PM

AN8150 - it is encouraging to see such faith in mankind in the face of the immense historical evidence against your position. Bless you for your idealism. It is misplaced. Of that I am certain. Your idealism seems to lead you to think that the recognition of the right to property (whatever that means) and possibly the right to bear arms (your reference to this fellow wandering into the badlands "presumably unarmed" ) would solve all of this.

I'm handing over to Stavros again who has far great time, it appears, to contend with and largely refute your arguments.

an8150

11-29-2012, 03:25 PM

You had me worried there for a moment, Prospero, I thought you were going to have another crack at it.

Stavros

11-29-2012, 06:58 PM

[QUOTE=an8150;1242401]
Stavros, "b) I do not live in North Korea. And what message was I receiving when I was in Conservative Party Central Office in London in 1986 and there was a portrait of Margaret Thatcher on the wall behind the reception, much as one sees portraits of the Queen in public buildings in the UK, or Mao Zedong in China --? [are you seriously comparing my North Korean example with those two things?]
--Yes of course; the display of images in public or in private is not a random act without meaning, such displays are pregnant with meaning, even if they do not give birth to the same consequence. Why, for example, was there a portrait of Mrs Thatcher in the prime location, rather than the Queen? Accidental? Deliberate?

...the covenant we enter into that has created the modern state has endowed government to regulate things such as the use of the road [I haven't entered into any such covenant, and although I agree that most people agree with you, I don't suppose many of them have ever given it a first or second thought, so much as they just accept things as they are and cannot imagine anything else; but I think we've covered this ground already], and governments are democratically accountable; and moreover from what I have seen there are people who should never be allowed behind the wheel of a car drunk or sober, and certainy drunk drivers do not act with caution [that may well often be true, but if so traffic lights won't make the blindest bit of difference to them].
--In the first place, if you pay taxes and mostly abide by the law, you have entered into the covenant by default; in fact in an earlier post you endorsed the existence of the state as the guarantor of your freedom from attack, which once again confirms your confirmation that you have entered into a covenant with the state, and indeed, THIS state, ie the UK.
--In the second place the traffic lights are crucial because to successfully prosecute a drunk driver, it is not only necessary to prove that he was legally over the limit, but that he drove through a red light.

-On freedom and liberty we have to agree to disagree, or this argument could go on forever.

-so suddenly your minarchism is mediated [you mean diminished, in some sense?] because you don't actually dislike Queen Elizabeth [I neither like nor dislike her; I am ambivalent about her in her professional capacity]? Either you approve of the monarchy or you don't [if I were designing from scratch a constitution for 21st century Britain, I wouldn't include a monarchy in it, but we are where we are and, while I agree that the monarchy has an unfortunate role in cementing a lack of social mobility, I think there are much greater and more immediate problems than who is head of state and, indeed, whether we have a head of state], to maintain a structure that is opposed to everything you claim to believe in weakens your argument [see my previous comment: there are far greater, more urgent enemies of freedom than a hereditary monarch].
-as a minarchist I don't see how you can be so ambiguous about the monarchy or the concept of the 'head of state' since crucial elements of your reforms would sweep it away. In fact in the UK it is a form of political cowardice because the Monarchy in general is popular, even if not all royals are: you won't gain any political friends by campaigning for an entirely secular and republican state because people would find the prospect of such a state, at the moment, too uncertain.

I keep being called the utopian and the (niaive) idealist, as if those are bad things; I thought it was you lot who wanted to create the new jerusalem!
--Having lived in Jerusalem to experience its exquisite mysteries and not so exquisite miseries, I have no desire to rebuilt it anywhere, in reality or in symbolic terms.

It is also the case that if there is a profitable market in kidnappings, then they will take place, and as you know there have indeed been kidnapppings across Latin America, Africa and India, many of them brutal. But, if you are opposed to the operations of the market in this trade, I think you should explain why [seriously? how about we start with the non-aggression principle?]. there was, at one time, a thriving market in the sale and purchase of human beings, it was called Slavery. If it emerges that you actually believe in the concept of justice [as a process, yes; it is not, as I suspect you believe, an outcome], maybe even of fairness [it means even-handedness; as a concept in law it means, or should mean, that people are treated equally by the law, as a matter of the law's process], then you must explain how the choices made by an individual in a free market operate if he or she is not allowed to buy and sell or kidnap people [that would be the non-aggression principle again], or for exampe, oil and freight tankers plying the seas off the coast of East Africa [I'm sorry, are you saying that oil tankers are engaged in activity as morally odious as kidnapping/buying/selling people?]. As Don Corleone might have said, after all, 'Its not personal, just business'.
--I don't see how you can claim that kidnapping or buying and selling people is 'morally odious' when Minarchism has no belief in morals, but only in self-interest. Slavery was a lucrative trade for a long time before it was abolished, except of course that slavery may not have been, as 'people trafficking' continues to this day. More importantly, Marx argued that as capitalism transforms everything into a commodity that can exchanged for money, and as life without money in a capitalist society is either impossible or at least very difficult, then we are all 'wage slaves' or slaves of money. Just as the abolition of private property in Marx must mean the abolition of money, I don't see how minarchists can propose a truly rational social order in which money has a role, precisely because it is not just, and it is thus noteworthy that you do not show an interest in justice as an outcome, but as a process.

So yes, there is trade, in oil on oil tankers, people in containers, pornography and narcotics, biscuits and lamb. As soon as you posit a moral concern above and beyond rational self-interest, your whole edifice of liberty falls apart. Which may be why so few people subscribe to it.

hippifried

11-29-2012, 08:23 PM

hippifried, to take just one example, I asked you:

"so you'd be prepared to see global GDP spent on, say, closing down a dodgy restaurant or treatment for a woman's diabetes?"

you replied:

“I have no problem at all with the "global GDP" being spent on treating & preventing the spread of disease.”

And that’s an answer to a different question. I understand why you did it, because you were caught on the horns of the dilemma you set for yourself when you said, “Can't subject public safety to cost/benefit analysis”, and my contingent question to you was, “did you think I wouldn’t notice?”, which you also haven’t answered. When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

Btw, what's trivial about a hypothetical scenario in which global GDP is spent on curing one person's diabetes? It's surely a gargantuan scenario, no?

What the hell are you talking about? Do you know? I don't know for "Rand-speak", but in the real world, diabetes is a disease. It's a debilitating disease that requires treatment to keep the victim from becoming more of a burden on others due to blindness, circulatory issues, strokes, & amputations. No cure yet, but the publicly funded universities are working on it with their government research grants. "The market" isn't interested in looking for a cure. There's no financial profit, & there's too much money to be made through disease maintenance & exacerbation.

The "dodgy restaurant" isn't being picked on because somebody doesn't like their food. They're being shuttered because they're spreading disease. Even if "the market" could or would put an end to that, it'd have to be after the fact. When people are already dead or deathly ill, it's too late. We, as a collective society, have already pooled our resources to research the causes of these diseases. Refusal to prevent them, especially to merely adhere to some crackpot social theory, would be stupid & negligent to the point of criminality.

There, I addressed your trivial minutia. Happy now? Of course "global GDP" doesn't fall into that category. It's not spent on a dodgy restaurant, or treatment of a woman's diabetes. Part of the global GDP gets spent on the global prevention & treatment of disease, as it should be. You lumped it all together in one sentence. I'm not a mind reader.

You seem to be caught in some silly idea that I have ulterior motives that drive my opinions &/or writing style. You don't know why I do anything. I don't have a dilemma, with or without horns. I'm not confused about my opinions at all. I've been consistent throughout. The public safety cannot be contingent on cost/benefit analysis. I don't know what you notice & don't care. People trump property. People have rights. Public safety is the chief reason that people gathered in collective societies in the first place. The collective society generates all wealth, creativity, & inventive progress. Ayn Rand was a crackpot. Her cult followers are crackpots. Her crackpot egoism theory is even more unworkable than Marx's crackpot theories, & not as well thought out. All these crocodile tears about personal liberty are, for the most part, just a "looter's" claim to impunity. There's no such thing as impunity.

Prospero

11-29-2012, 08:57 PM

Oe of the great thing about freedom and liberty is the right of people to cleave to absurd and unworkable and crackpot theories - as an8150 so eloquently proves through 21 pages now.

Odelay

12-04-2012, 04:11 AM

Stavros

12-04-2012, 06:43 AM

Was going to post this link, and then not, and now I will, but not for the original reason that I was going to post it, i.e. it's content surrounding the primary topic of this thread - coercion.

http://lhote.blogspot.com/2012/11/coercion.html

No, the reason I post this piece from one of my favorite liberal bloggers is because it shows just how easy a good argument can be countered. Skip down to the comment by "ryan" and you have a cogent reply to Freddie's piece. I believe one reason for this is that we are frequently arguing soft topics... topics like religion, politics, philosophy, etc., where opinions differ and the agreed to set of facts are often few or even non-existent, many times precluding anything resembling proof. But I do feel things are changing, and not for the better, in how some arguments are raging over what I call, hard topics.

No sane person argues if gravity is a real thing. It's remarkable to me that the rapid warming of the earth isn't more broadly and generally accepted. Granted, it's not immediately and conclusively testable like gravity, but the scientific evidence for it is now voluminous and that sort of matches up with our own anecdotal experiences such as this last very hot summer or the fact that there are half the glaciers in "Glacier" National Park, today, than there was when I grew up 36 miles outside the park entrance.

We are moving towards a world where "we" question everything. And I don't think that's a good trend.

An interesting post, Odelay and an interesting blog, but I wonder why the word coercion has become the currency in the debate between the libertarians and 'the rest'? And where does this State of Nature come in these days? I challenge the concept of coercion, and the state of nature.

In the first place, if by coercion one means forcing someone to do something they don't want to do through threat or sanction, how much coercion is there in reality, and how does one understand it? One the one hand it is true that people labour because they have to, that most do not get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work (and a tiny minority get a fabulous sum of money for very little in terms of real labour), and that they cannot enjoy the fruits of their labour for extended periods of time because the money they make is insufficient, the holiday time they get barely two weeks a year, while poverty and illness are often interlinked.

On the other hand, thousands of students choose to become lawyers, engineers, scientists and media specialists; or medical students because they want to practise medicine of some sort, maybe for the money, maybe because it is an honourable profession, with high social standing.

Millions of women in Europe and North America in the 19th and 20th centuries went to work in factories because they had to (latterly in war time), because the family needed the money -but while many on the left have absorbed the image (if not the text) of Marx's terrifying vision of The Working Day (Capital, Vol 1 Chapter 10), what Marx does not consider for the 19th century, which became evident later is that for many of those women work was liberation from a home life that was less than ideal; this was particularly true of the First and Second World Wars. In this context, work became a degree of freedom, and this is also to some extent true of women in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

And yet, if one agrees that capitalism can only survive by spreading like a virus until everyone and everything has become a commodity that can be bought and sold, and money becomes the symbol of private property, but something noone in a capitalist society can live without out, then everyone becomes enslaved to it, so that words like liberty appear not a contradiction of the facts, but an insult to them.

Crucially, we do not live in a state of nature, which is that of war or civil war and anarchy; Hobbes wrote Leviathan to point out that the alternative to a state of nature is a Common-Wealth which is what we have these days, the form of government in many appearing to be a democracy, rather than a Monarchy or an Aristrocracy. In the USA, if you wanted to be precise about it, there are 46 states, as Pennsylvania, Virginia, Massachussetts and Kentucky call themselves 'the Commonwealth' of...