Printable View
"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.
No they're judgements. Read my later post.
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]
"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.
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.
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.
I think some of you people should go through the Rorschach test. What do you see on that spot?
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.
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.
Rather depends on the agreement settled upon by the representatives whom you voted into office.Quote:
Rather depends whether they've paid in more or less than they've taken out.
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.Quote:
Moreover, in my view, a duty can only be voluntarily assumed.
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?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
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
At last, some intelligent and informed observations. Stavros, welcome back.
Especially this part->Quote:
Originally Posted by an8150
The "bolding" is mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by an8150
"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.
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...?].
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.
Bravo Stavros. A fine and sustained piece of argument.
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.Quote:
[E=MC2 = E=MC2. Aren't all tautologies simple?]
Your claim is that no state action is anything other than coercive.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by an8150
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
"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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by an8150
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.
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?
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by an8150
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.
No, I want the people to regulate the market for their own good.Quote:
You want to control and direct me for my own good?
The people. You know, those people that government is of, by and for. We regulate together.Quote:
...who is to control and direct you...? And who they?
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by an8150
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by an8150
There's a term for when government goes out of its way to aid in that outcome. It's called "fascism".Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
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.