Liberals vs Libertarians

[rocksteady]

Ok, I just want to point out that I've been in some pretty heated discussions with socialist/liberals lately, and it seems our core philosophies are diametrically opposed.

Why do you think this is?

we disagree on many issues, but what are the core beliefs that we do not share?

is it just that we differ in the amount of liberty we are willing to sacrifice to maintain security? Is it deeper than that?

[prometheus]

Ok, I just want to point out that I've been in some pretty heated discussions with socialist/liberals lately, and it seems our core philosophies are diametrically opposed.

Why do you think this is?

we disagree on many issues, but what are the core beliefs that we do not share?

is it just that we differ in the amount of liberty we are willing to sacrifice to maintain security? Is it deeper than that?


My experiences are that Liberals and libertarians hold almost 100% of the same opinions on civil rights (except self defense) and 0% on property rights.

Conservatives use to be (prior to eminent domain, and drug laws) almost 100 on property rights, and 0% on civil rights (except self defense)

[Tsuru]

The difference between modern liberalism (aka progressivism) and classical liberalism (aka libertarianism) is that progressives want to encroach on the economy and individual finances for social agendas, while libertarians do not.

In other words, the fundamental core difference is that libertarians see economic rights/sovereignity and non-infringement of trade as an essential dimension of a free society and a free person, while progressives do not consider it so. Progressives see it as a function of government to confiscate the property of some individuals for the sake of the common good.

[prometheus]

The difference between modern liberalism (aka progressivism) and classical liberalism (aka libertarianism) is that progressives want to encroach on the economy and individual finances for social agendas, while libertarians do not.

In other words, the fundamental core difference is that libertarians see economic rights/sovereignity and non-infringement of trade as an essential dimension of a free society and a free person, while progressives do not consider it so. Progressives see it as a function of government to confiscate the property of some individuals for the sake of the common good.


Well put, and have you noticed the liberals moving away from that label and adopting progressive more and more................they are still nothing more than socialists though. ;)

[AgentofGaming]

What about Progressive Conservatives? Like the Progressive Conservative party of Ontario.
It seems contradictory to be progressive and conservative.

[Riverratt]

The Democrats have skewed the definitions...

Liberals, tend to be Communistic, or Socialist now.

Libertarians, are the TRUE Liberals.

Heck even the Republicans have become like the Democrats "of old", more than willing to implement the "10 planks of Communism" :rolleyes: Remember, it is for the children.

[quentin]

Liberals care about other people.

[Riverratt]

Liberals care about other people.

Yea, ONLY if it is political correct to do so. :suspicious:

[wise]

Liberals care about other people.

Having been employed in state government for 26 years, largely liberal in composition, my experience is that liberals care about numero uno. Come to think of it, politicians in total care about numero uno. I don't believe what a politician says; their actions are often contrary to their promises, albeit with excuses, and blame for their retractors and oppponents, as to why.

[Bossy Mom]

Liberals care about other people.

That is funny. They just like the appearance of caring about other people -- and they want other people to fund their "caring."

[Sylvanus]

Liberals care about other people.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

[thod]

The odd thing is that the US election is a contest between a right wing conservative and an even more right wing conservative. You have to go outside the narrow politics of that "bought and paid for" country to get some real political diversity.

[Sylvanus]

The odd thing is that the US election is a contest between a right wing conservative and an even more right wing conservative. You have to go outside the narrow politics of that "bought and paid for" country to get some real political diversity.

Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson? All the real right wing conservatives dropped out already.

[thod]

From my non US perspective Bill Clinton was a rabid right wing loon too. You dont get any real middle ground politicians in the US.

They only picked McCain as a lame duck. Nobody that was any good would want to run this time around so they picked an old man. You only get one shot and this time is going to be a democrat win. All the good repulicans would play the strategic game and wait for next time where they have a chance.

[Bossy Mom]

From my non US perspective Bill Clinton was a rabid right wing loon too. You dont get any real middle ground politicians in the US.

They only picked McCain as a lame duck. Nobody that was any good would want to run this time around so they picked an old man. You only get one shot and this time is going to be a democrat win. All the good repulicans would play the strategic game and wait for next time where they have a chance.

This reminds me of 1996 when the Republicans ran Bob Dole, another middle-of-the-roader. He lost very badly. I voted for him, but very reluctantly.

Bill Clinton right wing? That is funny. He just followed the polls and make his decisions based on Gallup, etc.

You will never see a best selling book on the ideals of middle-of-the-roaders, because they have no principles or ideals. They just compromise everything.

You'd probably call me a rabid right wing loon, but I don't care. Principles, honor and integrity mean everything to me. If that is rabid, great. If I am right wing, that means I don't believe in legalized theft or physically enforced charity. Great. A loon? I believe in personal responsibilty, taking care of my family and always doing the right and honorable thing. If that is a loon, then I am one.

[OneBadMother]

Libertarianism vs. liberalism, from what I'm given to understand, is like the difference between anarchism and socialism. Libertarianism is essentially looking out for oneself and maintaining a sort of self-sufficiency. Liberalism is trying to look out for everyone equally, perhaps at the cost of some individual freedoms. The social viewpoints may be similar, but the practices are not. I don't think either one really works, since people in general are both needy and selfish, so we end up with a kind of compromise as evidenced by most first-world governments today, tending a bit more towards the socialist side due to our increasingly centralized government.

[AgentofGaming]

You will never see a best selling book on the ideals of middle-of-the-roaders, because they have no principles or ideals. They just compromise everything.


Compromise is not always a bad thing, if you can satisfy both ends.
Or politically picking up the advantages at each end and avoiding the disadvantages at each end.
I think they called Clinton an adherent of the third way (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Flexibility is useful. people change, politics change, parties change.

There are also aren't many centrist parties in North America.

[Riverratt]

Politics is like a two lane highway, You can either be in the RIGHT lane....or the LEFT lane....

Anything in the middle of the road is ROAD-KILL, as both sides run over it.

[quentin]

Politics is ALL about compromise. That's the definition of politics. That's why there are no genuine left or right wingers in Congress, or running for President. Ideologues can rant their hare-brained theories all they want but they never achieve the power to put their extremism into action. If you want results, it's the middle-of-the-roaders who do all the work. Compromisers are what make the world work.

[Lights]

Politics is like a two lane highway, You can either be in the RIGHT lane....or the LEFT lane....

Anything in the middle of the road is ROAD-KILL, as both sides run over it.

Poor Ron Paul...let him rest in pieces. :laugh:

[pavman]

...tending a bit more towards the socialist side due to our increasingly centralized government.

"I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. Papers 12:442

Long live the Anti-Federalists! :o)

[Lights]

"I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. Papers 12:442

Long live the Anti-Federalists! :o)

Is it an INTJ thing to quote long dead guys? Personally I don't see any relevance to it. Thomas Jefferson was also one of the first people to suggest that blacks may be biologically inferior to whites, which seems a bit hypocritical considering he would write something like, "All men are created equal" and he would bang a slave. Hm...weird how I never see anyone quoting that shit. I wonder why...

That is alright. I'll do it!

They secrete less by the kidneys and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odor. They seem to require less sleep...They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. In general their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labor. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to whites; in reason, much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless and anomalous...

[Bossy Mom]

Is it an INTJ thing to quote long dead guys? Personally I don't see any relevance to it. Thomas Jefferson was also one of the first people to suggest that blacks may be biologically inferior to whites, which seems a bit hypocritical considering he would write something like, "All men are created equal" and he would bang a slave. Hm...weird how I never see anyone quoting that shit. I wonder why...

That is alright. I'll do it!

So...only people of your generation have the answers to the fulfilled life? People of the past have no knowledge or wisdom to pass down to us? And people with principles and ethics are irrelevant? I don't understand how anyone could dismiss principles and universal truths as you do -- as though they are just comedic. You also need to cleanup your language -- it is quite offensive.

[Lights]

So...only people of your generation have the answers to the fulfilled life?

Nope, I don't think any generation has that. Who is to say what is fulfilling in my time is the same as what was fulfilling in Thomas Jefferson's time? Apparantly he was quite fulfilled doing the dirty with his slave woman. I personally don't think I would find that quite fulfilling in the present.

People of the past have no knowledge or wisdom to pass down to us?

Oh, they certainly do. But you have to treat their knowledge and wisdom as relevant to their time, and not necessarily to the present. Aristotle said that the brain is the most useless organ in the human body, serving only to cool the blood. Should neurosurgeons today be taking his knowledge as the truth? Has there not been significantly more knowledge and wisdom gained since then? Thomas Jefferson clearly thought black people were inferior, and yet abolitionists used his own words, "All men are created equal" to fight for a cause that contradicted his knowledge. Were they wrong? Should they have ceded to the greater wisdom of the past?

And people with principles and ethics are irrelevant?

Principles and ethics are based upon values. And those are only as relevant as the people who hold them. One person may value individualism and property rights, so they become a libertarian and uphold those ethics and principles. Another person may value equality and social justice, so they become a liberal and uphold those ethics and principles. Who is to say that one person's values are inferior to another's?

I don't understand how anyone could dismiss principles and universal truths as you do -- as though they are just comedic.

It isn't hard. It's called "cultural relatavism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)". But being an objectivist, I can understand where you are limited in that respect. You have my pity.

You also need to cleanup your language -- it is quite offensive.

You can buy patches for your browser that will censure people's language. You can't expect people to change the way they behave just to suit you.

[Caramel]

The INTJ forum must be the only place on earth where being a 'F' in stead of a 'T' is considered an insult lol.

Anyway, back on topic.. in my search for more information on the libertarian political position, I found this website: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I found it an interesting read, but I don't know if the text on it is valid. (Prometheus, maybe you can shed some light on that? You're more educated on this.)

(They also have this page about MBTI, which correlates the temperaments to the political chart. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[prometheus]

"I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. Papers 12:442

Long live the Anti-Federalists! :o)


Here here!





prometheus added to this post, 16 minutes and 45 seconds later...

The INTJ forum must be the only place on earth where being a 'F' in stead of a 'T' is considered an insult lol.

Anyway, back on topic.. in my search for more information on the libertarian political position, I found this website: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I found it an interesting read, but I don't know if the text on it is valid. (Prometheus, maybe you can shed some light on that? You're more educated on this.)

(They also have this page about MBTI, which correlates the temperaments to the political chart. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


Great links. It always warms the cold, selfish, cockles of my heart to see new sites like this I have missed. I threw off my belief in the L/R political charts years ago, actually the first time I saw the Nolan Chart also included in that link. It was nice to see the Rasmussen Research Poll also.

[Sylvanus]

Nope, I don't think any generation has that. Who is to say what is fulfilling in my time is the same as what was fulfilling in Thomas Jefferson's time? Apparantly he was quite fulfilled doing the dirty with his slave woman. I personally don't think I would find that quite fulfilling in the present.

First of all, those claims are unsubstantiated. Thomas Jefferson's brother was known to spend quite a bit of time with the slave women. Regardless, whether he did his slaves or not, he still had quite a fulfilling life outside of his sexual life.



Oh, they certainly do. But you have to treat their knowledge and wisdom as relevant to their time, and not necessarily to the present. Aristotle said that the brain is the most useless organ in the human body, serving only to cool the blood. Should neurosurgeons today be taking his knowledge as the truth? Has there not been significantly more knowledge and wisdom gained since then? Thomas Jefferson clearly thought black people were inferior, and yet abolitionists used his own words, "All men are created equal" to fight for a cause that contradicted his knowledge. Were they wrong? Should they have ceded to the greater wisdom of the past?


Just because Aristotle's knowledge of biology is vastly inferior to ours (especially considering he lived over 2000 years ago), doesn't mean that nothing he says can be useful. Likewise, Thomas Jefferson, like just about every other person of his day thought that blacks were inferior. So did Abraham Lincoln, until he met Frederick Douglass then we was convinced otherwise (after he became an abolitionist). Sometimes dead people have said things that may be relevant to a current situation, sometimes what they have said is either wrong or obsolete.


Principles and ethics are based upon values. And those are only as relevant as the people who hold them. One person may value individualism and property rights, so they become a libertarian and uphold those ethics and principles. Another person may value equality and social justice, so they become a liberal and uphold those ethics and principles. Who is to say that one person's values are inferior to another's?



It isn't hard. It's called "cultural relatavism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)". But being an objectivist, I can understand where you are limited in that respect. You have my pity.



You can buy patches for your browser that will censure people's language. You can't expect people to change the way they behave just to suit you.

Relativism is a lie.

[Lights]

First of all, those claims are unsubstantiated. Thomas Jefferson's brother was known to spend quite a bit of time with the slave women. Regardless, whether he did his slaves or not, he still had quite a fulfilling life outside of his sexual life.

Dude, they proved it genetically. :laugh: Get over it.

Just because Aristotle's knowledge of biology is vastly inferior to ours (especially considering he lived over 2000 years ago), doesn't mean that nothing he says can be useful. Likewise, Thomas Jefferson, like just about every other person of his day thought that blacks were inferior. So did Abraham Lincoln, until he met Frederick Douglass then we was convinced otherwise (after he became an abolitionist). Sometimes dead people have said things that may be relevant to a current situation, sometimes what they have said is either wrong or obsolete.

You haven't disagreed with anything I have said. You have merely proved my point that things need to be to understood in relation to the time they took place. You just confirmed relativism.

Relativism is a lie.

And other than Ayn Rand, what do you base this assertion on? Considering that you confirmed it above, I don't think you are making a strong case.

[Sylvanus]

Dude, they proved it genetically. :laugh: Get over it.


No, they proved it was a Jefferson, but they didn't narrow it down to him.



You haven't disagreed with anything I have said. You have merely proved my point that things need to be to understood in relation to the time they took place. You just confirmed relativism.


The truth you have is limited by your knowledge. Our knowledge is limited, we have limited truth. Theirs was far more limited, their truth was far more limited. They were not correct in their beliefs, but we can take what they have said and their beliefs with a grain of salt.



And other than Ayn Rand, what do you base this assertion on? Considering that you confirmed it above, I don't think you are making a strong case.

I'm full of cold medicine, so I'm not going to break it down for you. I'll just link it: Link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Lights]

No, they proved it was a Jefferson, but they didn't narrow it down to him.

I believe you are wrong, but I'm too tired to search Google at the moment.

The truth you have is limited by your knowledge. Our knowledge is limited, we have limited truth. Theirs was far more limited, their truth was far more limited. They were not correct in their beliefs, but we can take what they have said and their beliefs with a grain of salt.

You are still not making an argument against relativism.

I'm full of cold medicine, so I'm not going to break it down for you. I'll just link it: Link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I don't believe in absolute relativism.

Neo-Relativism

1. There is an objective reality.
2. The objective reality can only be observed through relative means (sensory experiences, human cognition, measurement, etc.) and therefore it can only be known relatively.
3. Our relative understanding of the objective universe (science, philosophy, etc.) is based upon standardized relative measurements (time, length, mass, etc.) and is therefore limited to certain parameters we have defined.
4. Therefore, there is also a relative reality based upon human perception of the objective reality.
5. The only reality that has meaning to humans is the relative one, since if we did not exist, there would be no one to percieve the objective one. Whereas the relative reality would cease to exist with us.
6. Every individual experiences the relative reality differently.

[AgentofGaming]

I have a question to both sides:
After snow falls we're obligated to remove the snow from the sidewalks in front of our houses within 12 hours.
I'm forced by my dad to shovel snow...
In Alberta a granny got fined for not removing her snow, although someone wanted to foot her bill she refused. Also this was enough to reach national news.
What do you think?

[thod]

I have a question to both sides:
After snow falls we're obligated to remove the snow from the sidewalks in front of our houses within 12 hours.
I'm forced by my dad to shovel snow...
In Alberta a granny got fined for not removing her snow, although someone wanted to foot her bill she refused. Also this was enough to reach national news.
What do you think?

Thats odd. So if I set up a snow blower and blow snow onto the sidewalk outside your house you have to remove it?

Seems to me that it was not due to your action or inaction that the snow is on the sidework therefore you are not responsible for it. Who actualy owns the sidewalk? I bet its not you. Therefore it seems to me the town council should remove it since its on their land, its their snow, not the grannys.

I will often spend days away in other cities on business where there is no chance of the snow being cleared. Seems pointless to clear snow when more will simply drop. Where are you going to clear it to? onto the road so the cars cant get by.

[Sylvanus]

I kind of agree with you thod. It's there sidewalks, they should shovel them if they care so much. I believe that most areas have local laws that require you to shovel your sidewalks regardless of whether you want to or have the ability to. It's all part of living in a community. They expect you to keep it clean so your fellow citizens can walk down the sidewalk without being swallowed by snow. Of course the city could pay for it, but you would just end up paying for it in the end with increased taxes. It's a no-win situation. The libertarian in me says the law sucks, but the pragmatist in me says it's a fair law, but the fine was probably excessive.

[AgentofGaming]

Thats odd. So if I set up a snow blower and blow snow onto the sidewalk outside your house you have to remove it?

Seems to me that it was not due to your action or inaction that the snow is on the sidework therefore you are not responsible for it. Who actualy owns the sidewalk? I bet its not you. Therefore it seems to me the town council should remove it since its on their land, its their snow, not the grannys.

I will often spend days away in other cities on business where there is no chance of the snow being cleared. Seems pointless to clear snow when more will simply drop. Where are you going to clear it to? onto the road so the cars cant get by.

I don't shovel the snow or look into the municipal bylaw but I believe it's yes, since it's snow on your section of the sidewalk.

I guess the point of clearing the snow is so other people can walk. Sometimes I wish the institution I'm attending for school would clean it up, instead of me having to make long jumps to avoid slush puddles.

You can't put it on the road, that's disrupting traffic, you're suppose to pile it on your lawn.

So yeah I guess it's the way it is, shovel it yourself with mandate or a higher city expenditure.

[headrush]

Liberalism should be interpreted as in classical liberalism, a true liberal wants a strict minarchistic government. When people who call themselves liberals shouts for bigger government and supports the welfare state they should no longer be considered liberals. They have then indeed left the belief of individual liberty in the gutter.

[Sylvanus]

Liberalism should be interpreted as in classical liberalism, a true liberal wants a strict minarchistic government. When people who call themselves liberals shouts for bigger government and supports the welfare state they should no longer be considered liberals. They have then indeed left the belief of individual liberty in the gutter.

Unfortunately the socialists stole the word and soiled its good name. It's too much of a burden to have to constantly explain to people what classical liberal means, so I just say conservative. It's good enough.

[ginandsour]

Is it an INTJ thing to quote long dead guys? Personally I don't see any relevance to it. Thomas Jefferson was also one of the first people to suggest that blacks may be biologically inferior to whites, which seems a bit hypocritical considering he would write something like, "All men are created equal" and he would bang a slave. Hm...weird how I never see anyone quoting that shit. I wonder why...

Long dead guys have good information. Experience through history helps determine probabilities, which is how I suspect INTJs have the tendency to be "intuitive"--it's not a paranormal thing, it's that your brain runs probabilities and makes educated guesses more quickly.

We know that people are flawed. That does not prevent them from having something meaningful to say.

Slaves, not being "people" at the writing of many founding documents are not included in the statement "all men are created equal", but the prose becomes less elegant when you write it out as "all free, land owning white males of a certain age are created equal".

So, it really does not matter who Jefferson was sleeping with. If it was his white wife or black slave, they still were not "equal", no matter what he wrote, fluidity of the document aside.

[headrush]

Unfortunately the socialists stole the word and soiled its good name. It's too much of a burden to have to constantly explain to people what classical liberal means, so I just say conservative. It's good enough.

True, but I will continue explain just because i like when those fake liberals choke on their bullshit debating me.

[Lights]

True, but I will continue explain just because i like when those fake liberals choke on their bullshit debating me.

My...such hostility. One must remember that even traditionally the word has meant to be open to new ideas and tolerant of others. Just because the modern liberals don't necessarily agree with the same political and economic freedoms expressed by classical liberals doesn't make them any less liberal in the cultural sense of the term.

[ArchonAlarion]

gotta love friesian, its where I learned about philosphy and was the diving board for my descent into libertarian anarchism.

by the way "modern liberals" are not the same as libertarians/classical liberals because a liberal is someone who sees individual liberty as the highest political goal. Democrats, socialists, and greens are not advocates of individual liberty and therefore, not truely liberals.

[prometheus]

gotta love friesian, its where I learned about philosphy and was the diving board for my descent into libertarian anarchism.


I saw your other post about taxes, are you sure you aren't a market anarchist, or anarcho-capitalist instead of a libertarian anarchist?

Bring on the Miniarchy v. anarchy debate. ;D

[Lights]

by the way "modern liberals" are not the same as libertarians/classical liberals because a liberal is someone who sees individual liberty as the highest political goal. Democrats, socialists, and greens are not advocates of individual liberty and therefore, not truely liberals.

They aren't classical liberals, but that doesn't mean they aren't liberal in the cultural meaning of the term.

[Kfbr]

They're all just words to me, I don't really care what people call me. Though I'd consider myself an extreme moderate.

[prometheus]

They're all just words to me, I don't really care what people call me. Though I'd consider myself an extreme moderate.
LOL

[Lights]

They're all just words to me, I don't really care what people call me. Though I'd consider myself an extreme moderate.

:laugh: Why the hell not? They have compassionate conservatives and fiscal liberals. I guess we could add one more oxymoron to our already busted political system.

[Jerry]

Liberals are good-hearted people who are too ignorant to have realized the evils of the state.

In fact they are so insane they wish to be Ultra-well-intentioned tyrants. HA!

[Lights]

Liberals are good-hearted people who are too ignorant to have realized the evils of the state.

In fact they are so insane they wish to be Ultra-well-intentioned tyrants. HA!

Well...Libertarians are realistic people who are too ignorant to have realized the evils of capitalism.

In fact they are so insane they wish to be Ultra-individualistic anarchists. :p

[Jerry]

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.


Haha!

[prometheus]

Liberals are good-hearted people who are too ignorant to have realized the evils of the state.

In fact they are so insane they wish to be Ultra-well-intentioned tyrants. HA!


Correction: They want to be mini-gods, healing the sick, and able to take five barley loaves and two small fish to feed thousands of people.

[Jerry]

Well...Libertarians are realistic people who are too ignorant to have realized the evils of capitalism.

In fact they are so insane they wish to be Ultra-individualistic anarchists. :p

Oh so close, but no cigar. Much evil and mallice exists in capitalism (because of it's hyper-inclusive nature). But because it involves no coerrsion, it is certainly the lesser of evils, it does not rely on an evil gesture, and it is also just as good as is evil.

You imply human nature is evil; fair enough. Don't blame capitalism; it is simply an embodiment.

[Lights]

Oh so close, but no cigar. Much evil and mallice exists in capitalism (because of it's hyper-inclusive nature). But because it involves no coerrsion, it is certainly the lesser of evils, it does not rely on an evil gesture, and it is also just as good as is evil.

You imply human nature is evil; fair enough. Don't blame capitalism; it is simply an embodiment.

:laugh: That is where you lose me bud. I only have to look back on history to see the prejudice, bigotry, oppression that were spawned by capitalistic endeavors. You know, like colonialism and imperialism. Of course you could say that pure capitalism isn't evil, but that is like saying that pure socialism isn't evil. And they ultimately are both unattainable.

[Jerry]

Oh but pure socialism IS evil!

Private pockets of socialism within a capitalist society is more than fine.

But calling slavery, oppresion, ect. capitalism is somewhat libelous. It cannot even be called an impure form. Sure there is a profit motive. But it is theft, not legitimate trade.

When you take a look back in history at socialist endevours, what do you see?

And while pure capitalism doesn't exist, our world is bustling with legitimate, productive trade. The thing is capitalism is natural. It's like a tree that wraps its roots around even the most tyrannical water pipe. Nothing can stop it!

[Lights]

Oh but pure socialism IS evil!

Only because there is capitalism. And capitalism is evil only because there is socialism. They make each other evil.

Private pockets of socialism within a capitalist society is more than fine.

And necessary. Unregulated capitalism spells disaster. It's like handing all the power over to corporations. I wouldn't trust Enron or WorldCom anymore than the Federal government.

But calling slavery, oppresion, ect. capitalism is somewhat libelous. It cannot even be called an impure form. Sure there is a profit motive. But it is theft, not legitimate trade.

Oh? Well until approximately 150 years ago, slaves were considered property. And of course we all know how libertarians feel about private property. How dare the Federal Government dare to force them to give up their property. And of course the Confederates never attacked the Union, the big bad government came down and started war with them. And then of course, the Emancipation Proclamation was obvious theft of the South's property. See what I am getting at?

Do you honestly think the Conquistadors thought it was theft to take gold from land that was declared theirs by the Pope? How about the gold, silver, and oil rushes that drove Native Americans off their land? How about the blacklisting and murder of countless immigrants who used to be forced to work 14 hour days in unsafe conditions? The list goes on and on.

When you take a look back in history at socialist endevours, what do you see?

Depends on the socialists. When I look at the USSR, I see an ambitoius project that plummetted into totalitarianism. When I look at China, I see people who are fast becoming better capitalists than America. When at the UK I see a nation proud of its labor. When I look at some Scandanavian countries, Canada, and France, I see health care that is vastly superior to America's.

And while pure capitalism doesn't exist, our world is bustling with legitimate, productive trade. The thing is capitalism is natural. It's like a tree that wraps its roots around even the most tyrannical water pipe. Nothing can stop it!

True, and it's just as necessary to have government to regulate it because a pruned tree grows better fruit.

[Jerry]

I'll tell you how companies are "regulated":

costumers.

and when you bring up the costumers who are being ripped off or havin their food injected with dangerous chemicals, you have shown your true colors. you seem to believe that people are "entitled" to consumer products. there is nothing productive about entitlement. entitlement is what hinders all production. and production, ironically, fuffils the entitlements that socialists and democrats have without actually having entitlements. funny how that works.

[Lights]

I'll tell you how companies are "regulated":

costumers.

Until monopolies and conglomerates form.

and when you bring up the costumers who are being ripped off or havin their food injected with dangerous chemicals, you have shown your true colors. you seem to believe that people are "entitled" to consumer products. there is nothing productive about entitlement. entitlement is what hinders all production. and production, ironically, fuffils the entitlements that socialists and democrats have without actually having entitlements. funny how that works.

I never said anything about "entitlement". I do believe that people have a right to social and economic justice. And sometimes having socialized systems in place provides much needed infrastructure for companies to prosper, such as highways and a police force.

[Jerry]

I never said anything about "entitlement". I do believe that people have a right to social and economic justice. And sometimes having socialized systems in place provides much needed infrastructure for companies to prosper, such as highways and a police force.



Economic justice? That would imply, at least, that everyone ought to get a fair deal. At any cost? (pun not intented) Even if it requires force against someone who earned THEIR wealth fair and sqaure?

That WOULD be an entitlement.

Now, obviously I think it would be great if everyone got to eat. But no one is ENTITLED to a meal. And even if you want to say they are, the market will provide a feast, while the government will provide a hot pocket.

Same with police. Do you think our current police force is doing a great job?!? You can't be serious!!!

And why should we be entitled to a highway?!? That seems proposterous!

[Lights]

Economic justice? That would imply, at least, that everyone ought to get a fair deal. At any cost? (pun not intented) Even if it requires force against someone who earned THEIR wealth fair and sqaure?

That WOULD be an entitlement.

Economic Justice - Fairness and equity in economic affairs, presumably by having laws, governments, and institutions that treat people equally and avoid favoring particular individuals or groups.

Basically it is the belief that businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on constructs such as gender, race, and ethnicity.

Now, obviously I think it would be great if everyone got to eat. But no one is ENTITLED to a meal. And even if you want to say they are, the market will provide a feast, while the government will provide a hot pocket.

Still not talking about entitlement. Let me know when you get back to what we are discussing.

Same with police. Do you think our current police force is doing a great job?!? You can't be serious!!!

Oh? I'm sorry. Let's bring Blackwater over here to do it. I've heard of some of their exceptional performance in Iraq. :rolleyes:

And why should we be entitled to a highway?!? That seems proposterous!

I never said anything about entitlement. I only said that the infrastructure helps businesses. Do you disagree?

[Jerry]

Basically it is the belief that businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on constructs such as gender, race, and ethnicity.

Before I begin, even if infrastructure helps businesses, it doesn't matter. Businesses don't have a right to this help. Only certain businesses will benefit from various infrastrcture, thus creating the favoritism that you despise.

Okay here is the problem. You believe in entitlements and you don't even know it. Why shoudn't a company have the right to discriminate against races? Now don't take a cheap shot and say I'm personally condoning racism because I'm not. But the fact that you want to ban these discriminations proves that you believe that people are entitled to use businesses. You believe everyone must be inserted equally into the market. You believe people have an entitlment to being treated fairly.

Now here is where we get into the real territory. The only thing people have a right to is their bodies and their property. If Wal-Mart wants to ban Mexicans from their store, then so be it. It is their store. It may hurt their business (proof that markets create incentives to serve the masses), but we can pretend the CEO hates Mexicans. Why should the Mexicans be able to "demand" that they be able to shop there?

However, obviously Wal-Mart must respect the rights of the Mexican individuals. Wal-Mart is not allowed to go on a crusade against Mexicans because that would be a violation of the Mexican's rights.

Then you probably ask "Who stops Wal-Mart from going on crusades against Mexicans?" Well the real answer is common sense, but for the sake of argument, the reality is that Mexicans will be able to use hold Wal-Mart liable for any damages caused. There is a risk in doing so for Wal-Mart.





Jerry added to this post, 7 minutes and 53 seconds later...

And Blackwater is an unnatural monster that is being nurtured by an empire.

[Lights]

Before I begin, even if infrastructure helps businesses, it doesn't matter. Businesses don't have a right to this help. Only certain businesses will benefit from various infrastrcture, thus creating the favoritism that you despise.

True, socialism brings out the inherent evil of capitalism. However, capitalism is about adaption, and so if a business can't adapt it will lose. The big fish will eat the little fish. Of course I don't hear you complaining about having highways or heck, even the internet.

Okay here is the problem. You believe in entitlements and you don't even know it.

I think the problem is that you are under the false assumption that all liberals favor entitlements. And now that you have found one that doesn't you don't know what to do.

Why shoudn't a company have the right to discriminate against races? Now don't take a cheap shot and say I'm personally condoning racism because I'm not.

Well there was this silly document called the Declaration of Independence that said, "All men are created equal." But I think it is mostly because discriminating based on race is purely based on ignorance and leads to oppression of a group based on an arbitrary characteristic.

But the fact that you want to ban these discriminations proves that you believe that people are entitled to use businesses. You believe everyone must be inserted equally into the market. You believe people have an entitlment to being treated fairly.

I believe people should have the same rights, opportunities, and protection under the law. Is it fair that women are paid only 80 cents on every dollar that men earn in this country? Is it fair that being born black means you are at an inherent disadvantage in this country? I don't believe people are entitled to be treated fairly, I believe they have a right to be treated fairly. Would it be fair of me to say that you believe people are entitled to own property? No, you believe they have a right to it, the same as me.

Now here is where we get into the real territory. The only thing people have a right to is their bodies and their property.

That is your value judgement.

If Wal-Mart wants to ban Mexicans from their store, then so be it. It is their store. It may hurt their business (proof that markets create incentives to serve the masses), but we can pretend the CEO hates Mexicans. Why should the Mexicans be able to "demand" that they be able to shop there?

Ok, let's go back 50 years and re institute segregation. Let's let the capitalistic system oppress the minorities in this country using the government to back it up. Wait..how did those black civil rights leaders earn their equality? Oh, that is right, they boycotted, protested, and had sit ins! See, the government doesn't have to do a thing. People can earn their social and economic justice. I've never been for programs in which the government tries to institute social or economic justice. Case in point, affirmative action mostly helped white women.

However, obviously Wal-Mart must respect the rights of the Mexican individuals. Wal-Mart is not allowed to go on a crusade against Mexicans because that would be a violation of the Mexican's rights.

Then you probably ask "Who stops Wal-Mart from going on crusades against Mexicans?" Well the real answer is common sense, but for the sake of argument, the reality is that Mexicans will be able to use hold Wal-Mart liable for any damages caused. There is a risk in doing so for Wal-Mart.

Um...I'm sorry, but that is just a stupid example. You picked a big corporation and the largest minority in this country, which happens to be one they are heavily invested, in order to emphasize the point that Wal-Mart would be hurting itself economically if it rejected them. No duh. Let's take all the bus companies in the United States and say they decided to start forcing Mexicans to sit in the back of the bus for no other reason than to put them in their place. Chances are, unless the Mexicans boycotted the busing companies, it wouldn't hurt their business. That is an example of economic oppression, and if they get the government to back them up, then it becomes and example of social oppression. Should bus companies have a right to treat people that way?

[Jerry]

entitlement or right, same thing. Yes not an entitlement in terms of monetary reward, but an entitlement nonetheless. you believe people have a right to equal wages? I see where you come from, but it is that very expectation and subsequent coersion of businesses that hinders the very production that WILL increase the wages. THATS the main point!

And again back to the whole "equality" thing. You say the highway allows the small fish to compete against the big fish. THAT IS NOT NECCESARILLY THEIR RIGHT!!! Your entire socialist concept of equality is the only thing PREVENTING equality!!!

And we all know why so many big fish are big fish (cough cough, corporate welfare)

You think the market is owned by ALL PEOPLE! You think everyone and has a right (or entitlement) to part of it. What you don't see is that private ownership is the most effective way of actually helping the very people you want to help!

You also say people are have the right to equal opportunities? Is an opportunity not an entitlment? I'm not asking you to change your position, but at least be honest about what you are!!!

[Lights]

entitlement or right, same thing. Yes not an entitlement in terms of monetary reward, but an entitlement nonetheless. you believe people have a right to equal wages? I see where you come from, but it is that very expectation and subsequent coersion of businesses that hinders the very production that WILL increase the wages. THATS the main point!

If you decide to redefine entitlements in such a way, then libertarians believe that property is an entitlement. So it's alright that businesses be allowed to coerce women and minorities, but the government can't coerce businesses in order to keep them from coercing women and minorities?

I see why you need to justify businesses being allowed to coerce. Of course, its the same thinking that allow businesses to coerce immigrants fresh off the boat with blacklisting and murder in the beginning of the 19th century. And its the same thinking that allowed the Confederates to justify slavery. And its the same thinking that allowed southern states to justify segregation. And its the same thinking that allows modern businesses to pay women less than men and discriminate against homosexuals.

And again back to the whole "equality" thing. You say the highway allows the small fish to compete against the big fish. THAT IS NOT NECCESARILLY THEIR RIGHT!!! Your entire socialist concept of equality is the only thing PREVENTING equality!!!

That isn't what I said at all. But it is an interesting perspective. To the contrary, I don't believe the government's duty should be aiming to provide for equality in the economic system, but rather it itself should provide equal treatment to all and it should focus on developing infrastructure which would be beneficial to all.

And we all know why so many big fish are big fish (cough cough, corporate welfare)

Indeed. Corporate buy outs are retarded.

You think the market is owned by ALL PEOPLE! You think everyone and has a right (or entitlement) to part of it. What you don't see is that private ownership is the most effective way of actually helping the very people you want to help!

It's interesting you like to tell me what I think. :laugh: Perhaps it's what you want me to think so I'll be easier to debate against. :p However, I don't disagree with your point. I just want everyone to have the equal opportunity to own property.

You also say people are have the right to equal opportunities? Is an opportunity not an entitlment? I'm not asking you to change your position, but at least be honest about what you are!!!

By your definition, individual rights are an entitlement. :laugh:

[Jerry]

When did I say business were allowed to coerse?

I said that business would BE coreced so that they would raise female wages.

I'm sure it would be easier to debate ME if I were throwing around blantant double standards. But I'm not...

[Lights]

When did I say business were allowed to coerse?

I said that business would BE coreced so that they would raise female wages.

I believe it was when you said.

Why shoudn't a company have the right to discriminate against races? Now don't take a cheap shot and say I'm personally condoning racism because I'm not.

[Jerry]

Is choosing not to sell an act of aggresion?

[Lights]

Is choosing not to sell an act of aggresion?

Is that the only way you are willing to accept that businesses discriminate against minorities? Anyways coercion doesn't have to be an act of aggression. By definition...

coercion: to compel or force by use of necessity, pressure, or action.

[Jerry]

How is a company compelling anyone to do anything if they don't sell to them, hire them, ect?

And again, most importantly. Let us use reality for an example as opposed to theory. (not to knock theory, just to put it aside.) Are they any private situations where one racist's (or whatever) single business decision will destroy the lives of millions? And even if the answer was yes, you do have to ask the question "Why were these millions relying on this one man?" By relying on others, you set your self up for a famine of sorts. These people are not entitled (or whatever you call it) to some form of social security at the expense of corporations.

[Lights]

How is a company compelling anyone to do anything if they don't sell to them, hire them, ect?

Denying necessity and applying pressure?

And again, most importantly. Let us use reality for an example as opposed to theory. (not to knock theory, just to put it aside.) Are they any private situations where one racist's (or whatever) single business decision will destroy the lives of millions?

Are you trying to make the argument that totalitarian socialists have destroyed millions of lives whereas private capitalists have not? Ok, I can give you an example of a capitalist who lead to the oppression and destruction of millions of lives. His name was Christopher Columbus, and his mutilation of Native inhabitants, forming of the idea of inferior races, and declaration to Europe that the new lands were "empty" and open for the taking, lead to hundreds of years of other capitalists forcing their way onto other's land so they could acquire it's resources.

And even if the answer was yes, you do have to ask the question "Why were these millions relying on this one man?" By relying on others, you set your self up for a famine of sorts. These people are not entitled (or whatever you call it) to some form of social security.

I'm sure the natives were not reliant on Christoper Columbus. They just had the terrible fortune of being discovered by him. It's no coincidence that where CC landed, Haiti, in one of the most impoverished places on Earth. It's been stripped of much of its resources by colonialists for centuries.

[Jerry]

Well as you know very well, that would be robbery and not capitalism and it is intellectually dishonest to call that capitalism.





Jerry added to this post, 2 minutes and 25 seconds later...

This is a good debate, but I should have fallen asleep three hours ago. I'm glad I signed up on this sight. Takecare

[Lights]

Well as you know very well, that would be robbery and not capitalism and it is intellectually dishonest to call that capitalism.

Just because that isn't how you envision capitalism doesn't mean it isn't capitalism.

Capitalism: An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Nothing in that definition that says people can't "coerce" or "steal", as they have for centuries, in the name of the market.

It seems to me that Libertarians believe in an ideal form of capitalism that falls within their personal values much as socialists believe in an ideal form of government that falls with their personal values. No wonder both groups are wishful thinkers. :laugh:

This is a good debate, but I should have fallen asleep three hours ago. I'm glad I signed up on this sight. Takecare

Good evening.

[Sylvanus]

Just because that isn't how you envision capitalism doesn't mean it isn't capitalism.

Capitalism: An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Nothing in that definition that say people can't "coerce" or "steal" as they have for centuries in the name of the market.

It seems to be that Libertarians believe in an ideal form of capitalism that falls within their personal values much as socialists believe in an ideal form of government that falls with their personal values. No wonder both groups are wishful thinkers.



Good evening.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy or a family of related political philosophies based on support for individual liberty. Libertarians believe that allowing individuals to own property is a necessary aspect of liberty.

Broadly speaking, there are two types of libertarians: rights theorists and consequentialists. Rights theorists (some of whom may be deontologists) assert that all persons are the absolute owners of their lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty. They maintain that the initiation of force by any person or government, against another person or their property—with force meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone—who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle. They do not oppose force used in response or resistance to initiatory aggressions such as violence, threat of violence, fraud or trespassing.


Libertarianism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

This definition is consistent with pretty much avery libertarian author I have read. Stealing other people's land= imperialism. Buying land so that it can be used for a better purpose than letting it sit unused = capitalism.

[Lights]

Libertarianism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

This definition is consistent with pretty much avery libertarian author I have read. Stealing other people's land= imperialism. Buying land so that it can be used for a better purpose than letting it sit unused = capitalism.

Yes, that is your ideology. Is it realistic in a world where there are capitalists who steal and coerce? Are they any less capitalists because they aren't libertarians?

[Sylvanus]

Yes, that is your ideology. Is it realistic in a world where there are capitalists who steal and coerce? Are they any less capitalists because they aren't libertarians?

A capitalist who steals and coerces automatically becomes a criminal. Capitalists aren't criminals by definition, only if they do things that make them criminals. Criminals should be justly punished. All capitalists shouldn't be treated as criminals just because a small minority of them are.

[Lights]

A capitalist who steals and coerces automatically becomes a criminal.

So you are saying that Christopher Columbus was a criminal? And everyone who owned a slave was? How bout the people who forced Native Americans off the land they were guaranteed by treaty?

Capitalists aren't criminals by definition, only if they do things that make them criminals.

True. Capitalists are criminals when they break laws. Was it against the law when Christopher Columbus mutilated Native inhabitants? Was it against the law to own a person back in the day when people owned slaves? Was it against the law for settlers to violate treaties with Native Americans on their land?

Criminals should be justly punished.

I agree. Of course, it seems the justice we have given CC is his own holiday.

All capitalists shouldn't be treated as criminals just because a small minority of them are.

The question is how a small a minority? Of course, it could also be argued that all socialists shouldn't be treated as tyrants just because a small minority of them are, but I doubt many Libertarians are going to take that tact any time soon.

[Sylvanus]

So you are saying that Christopher Columbus was a criminal? And everyone who owned a slave was? How bout the people who forced Native Americans off the land they were guaranteed by treaty?

True. Capitalists are criminals when they break laws. Was it against the law when Christopher Columbus mutilated Native inhabitants? Was it against the law to own a person back in the day when people owned slaves? Was it against the law for settlers to violate treaties with Native Americans on their land?

I agree. Of course, it seems the justice we have given CC is his own holiday.


By definition I would say no, he was not a criminal due to the fact that everything he did was sanctioned by the government. Was it moral, no. But little that deals with conquest is moral, even if it is done with the best of intentions. I am not trying to argue that CC was a good and moral person, I am trying to say that his actions are not the actions of a capitalist, but an imperialist.

If the US government signed a legal treaty with Native Americans, then they are bound by law to keep it, assuming that the indians kept their part of the agreement too.


The question is how a small a minority? Of course, it could also be argued that all socialists shouldn't be treated as tyrants just because a small minority of them are, but I doubt many Libertarians are going to take that tact any time soon.

Honestly, not counting TV and Hollywood movies, how often do we hear about corporate criminals? The Enron scandal is an exception, not the rule. There has been a fair amount of SEC actions taken against people for backdating stock-options in the last few years. While not necessarily illegal, it can be if done improperly. If they have done something illegal, they should be dealt with accordingly. I'm ok with that.

Sozialism is by definition tyranny, so that means all sozialists are tyrants.

[Lights]

By definition I would say no, he was not a criminal due to the fact that everything he did was sanctioned by the government. Was it moral, no. But little that deals with conquest is moral, even if it is done with the best of intentions. I am not trying to argue that CC was a good and moral person, I am trying to say that his actions are not the actions of a capitalist, but an imperialist.

No, his actions were not those of a libertarian. However, imperialists are usually capitalists.

Imperialism: Belief in the desirability of acquiring colonies and dependencies or extending a country's influence though means such as trade, diplomacy, military conquest.

Capitalism: An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Where in your mind are those mutually exclusive? How would you justify saying that Christopher Columbus, somebody who obviously believed in private ownership, was not a capitalist?

If the US government signed a legal treaty with Native Americans, then they are bound by law to keep it, assuming that the indians kept their part of the agreement too.

So one would assume.

Honestly, not counting TV and Hollywood movies, how often do we hear about corporate criminals? The Enron scandal is an exception, not the rule. There has been a fair amount of SEC actions taken against people for backdating stock-options in the last few years. While not necessarily illegal, it can be if done improperly. If they have done something illegal, they should be dealt with accordingly. I'm ok with that.

I'm not entirely sure where that came from, but ok. I would say that you should add WorldCom, Qwest, and about a dozen other companies to your "exception" list.

Sozialism is by definition tyranny, so that means all sozialists are tyrants.

By your definition, socialism is tyranny. Of course, libertarians just favor that the inevitable "force" and "coercion" of the world lie in the hands of capitalists rather than the government.

Forgive me, but I find it very funny that you folks would honestly believe that anyone who would "coerce" or "force" others can't at the same time believe in an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. :laugh:

[Sylvanus]

No, his actions were not those of a libertarian. However, imperialists are usually capitalists.

Imperialism: Belief in the desirability of acquiring colonies and dependencies or extending a country's influence though means such as trade, diplomacy, military conquest.

Capitalism: An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Where in your mind are those mutually exclusive? How would you justify saying that Christopher Columbus, somebody who obviously believed in private ownership, was not a capitalist?


Not mutually exclusive, but one does not imply the other. There are also Communist Imperialists, Fascist Imperialists, and in CC's case Feudal Imperialists.



I'm not entirely sure where that came from, but ok. I would say that you should add WorldCom, Qwest, and about a dozen other companies to your "exception" list.

So of all the thousands of corporations in the US, I am to believe that a few bad seeds in a few companies makes capitalists being criminals closer to 'the rule' than to 'the exception'?



By your definition, socialism is tyranny. Of course, libertarians just favor that the inevitable "force" and "coercion" of the world lie in the hands of capitalists rather than the government.

Forgive me, but I find it very funny that you folks would honestly believe that anyone who would "coerce" or "force" others can't at the same time believe in an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. :laugh:

Now you are just putting words into our mouths that I have already told you are untrue.

[Lights]

Not mutually exclusive, but one does not imply the other. There are also Communist Imperialists, Fascist Imperialists, and in CC's case Feudal Imperialists.

CC was a merchant capitalist by definition. If he was a feudalist then he wouldn't have went looking for investors overseas (good ol' Spain funded his voyage). Don't forget that his intention was to establish new trade routes with India.

So of all the thousands of corporations in the US, I am to believe that a few bad seeds in a few companies makes capitalists being criminals closer to 'the rule' than to 'the exception'?

Not at all. I'm merely making the point that capitalism isn't the ideal in the real world that libertarians tend to paint it as.

Now you are just putting words into our mouths that I have already told you are untrue.

Actually, that is exactly what Jerry was saying. I figured you were saying the same thing, but its good to see you weren't.

[Sylvanus]

CC was a merchant capitalist by definition. If he was a feudalist then he wouldn't have went looking for investors overseas (good ol' Spain funded his voyage). Don't forget that his intention was to establish new trade routes with India.

Good point. He seemed to have several competing agendas. Imperialism, missionary, money. A real capitalist would have taught the local population how to more efficiently produce a desired commodity, in order to trade and make more money. Slavery is incredibly inefficient, it is always better to lead with a carrot is always better than with a stick.




Not at all. I'm merely making the point that capitalism isn't the ideal in the real world that libertarians tend to paint it as.



I agree, in the real world. In the real world sozialism is much much worse than liberals paint it to be. Ideals are never as good in real life. Capitalism has the interesting aspect that they turn one of the worst parts of human nature, selfishness, and turn it into something good. Sozialism takes that same thing and turns it makes it worse. No system is completely is completely free of corruption, there will always be bad people. But capitalism and the free market minimizes the effect of these people by giving people the choice to go elsewhere if they attempt to gouge prices, and a republican government allows us to seek restitution and or punishment if we are wronged.

Like Jerry, I too must sign off for now. (I am going to try really hard to restore my internet this weekend, if not, I'll be back Sunday)

[Lights]

Good point. He seemed to have several competing agendas. Imperialism, missionary, money. A real capitalist would have taught the local population how to more efficiently produce a desired commodity, in order to trade and make more money. Slavery is incredibly inefficient, it is always better to lead with a carrot is always better than with a stick.

A real libertarian capitalist may have done that, but we are talking about capitalism in general in this example, and as it is in reality, it can be motivated by many factors.

I agree, in the real world. In the real world sozialism is much much worse than liberals paint it to be. Ideals are never as good in real life. Capitalism has the interesting aspect that they turn one of the worst parts of human nature, selfishness, and turn it into something good. Sozialism takes that same thing and turns it makes it worse. No system is completely is completely free of corruption, there will always be bad people. But capitalism and the free market minimizes the effect of these people by giving people the choice to go elsewhere if they attempt to gouge prices, and a republican government allows us to seek restitution and or punishment if we are wronged.

Like Jerry, I too must sign off for now. (I am going to try really hard to restore my internet this weekend, if not, I'll be back Sunday)

I think that emphasizes the point perfectly. The rest is your value judgement and assumptions based on your beliefs. After all, if libertarians could actually prove that capitalism and a free market minimized corruption, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. I assume otherwise based on what I have seen and what I have learned from history.

I won't argue about the merits of capitalism or the faults of socialism. I'm a liberal so I'm neither capitalist nor socialist. In fact, I see socialism as the reigns of capitalism. We hold too tight and we get bucked off, we hold too loose and we lose control. We need just the right of amount of regulation and control. That is how I believe we minimize corruption.

[prometheus]

This is quickly falling into a miniarchy (libertarianism) v. anarchy discussion. At least in my mind. The problems with corporations are all caused by lobbyists seeking (and generally) receiving special protectionist treatment from the government. These protectionist actions are in conflict with a free market, and are in fact not operating in a free market at this point. This is why I'm a Market Anarchist (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). If you remove the cronyism and favoritism (by removal of the government) the free market and capitalism will work as it should.

[interjerator]

I know a descendant of John Locke.

Libertarians are diametrically opposed to government intrusion into private life... one possible exception: broken contracts?

Liberals believe in government regulation of business and people.

It's a different world from when Locke wrote his "Second Treatise of Government." For the most part, especially in America, we are not ruled by the Kings and Queens that Locke railed against.

[eternaltriangle]

What about Progressive Conservatives? Like the Progressive Conservative party of Ontario.
It seems contradictory to be progressive and conservative.

The Progressive Conservative Party is called this because the leader of the Manitoba Progressive Party (John Bracken) became leader of the federal Conservative Party, and they joined the names (the Progressives were essentially dead by this time).

Secondly, Canadian politics (especially prior to the 80's) were not really about ideology, but rather, regional concerns. The PC Party was the party of English Canada, and of Ontario particularly, which had inefficient industries that supported protectionist policies (and anti-American rhetoric). The party was pretty okay with big government, if you contrast Bennett to William Lyon Mackenzie King (who radically reduced expenditures, despite governing through the Great Depression and the Second World War) or Diefenbaker to the business-friendly Louis St. Laurent. This started to change after Diefenbaker made the PC's a decidedly western Canadian party, and after Brian Mulroney brought soft nationalist Quebeckers in the party (and, with free trade, radically changed the dominant cleavages of Canadian politics).

The classical conservatism of the PC Party was progressive in the sense that they felt progress was necessary to prevent social disorder - not necessarily because they had any belief in it. Red Tories - contrary to the contemporary media misuse of the term - were socially conservative, but favorable to big government.





eternaltriangle added to this post, 14 minutes and 34 seconds later...

This is quickly falling into a miniarchy (libertarianism) v. anarchy discussion. At least in my mind. The problems with corporations are all caused by lobbyists seeking (and generally) receiving special protectionist treatment from the government. These protectionist actions are in conflict with a free market, and are in fact not operating in a free market at this point. This is why I'm a Market Anarchist (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). If you remove the cronyism and favoritism (by removal of the government) the free market and capitalism will work as it should.

The trouble is this... how do you prevent foreign invasion? How do you protect property? How do you provide the public goods that are necessary to the functioning of the market, but that no individual has any incentive to provide simply out of altruism? The answer, in each case, is government which, as you noted, is prone to corruption.

Can the free market provide these things? A private, for-profit court would be set up with an incentive structure that was not based on impartiality, but profit. This would hardly be incorruptible. Moreover, in the absense of a leviathan to impose law and order, if I was stronger than you (or if I had more private security guards than you) what incentive would I have to submit to the courts? The international system already gives you a good analog of what anarchy (a lack of [meaningful] hierarchy) looks like - the strong do what they can, while the weak to what they must.

What about national defence? There IS actually a long history of defense being provided by soldiers-for-hire, and this tendency is increasing as the dominant military paradigm shifts away from one of mass armies and towards skilled professionals (two signs of this: more mercenaries in the war in Iraq, and the rise of maritime piracy - the individual can pack more firepower, relatively speaking, than they could have decades ago). However, with mercenaries one has a principal agent problem: once paid mercenaries can then turn and raid their clients. This was commonplace in the 16th century. What about reputational concerns, you ask? A large enough payoff can counter the value of maintaining a reputation (hence, for instance, to use an analogy from the world of medicine, we got thalydimide).

Finally, public good provision suffers from the problem of free-riding. Imagine that we all like sunsets, and would collectively benefit from their provision. However, in this alternate words, building sunsets requires that we mine sun-rocks. The best outcome for me is to do nothing, and let others mine the sunrocks, while I enjoy the sunshine. When everybody thinks this way, you have a problem, however. The only solutions to that problem are altruism or force - and I rather think the latter is more reliable. There are also common pool problems that are greatly helped by having a government, but I think I have made my point.

[ArchonAlarion]

The public good problem doesn't really bother me. If you like sunsets than you'll have to work for them. The more people who freeride, the less sunset there will be.

The solution is... don't have public goods. Or if you have public goods, common goods, divide them up into private goods. This is why private property is more efficient. If you mine sunrocks for your private sunset than you will be fine. You won't be able to freeride.

The public goods issue seems to be more of a reason for a free market than not. Maybe thats what you're saying.

[eternaltriangle]

The public good problem doesn't really bother me. If you like sunsets than you'll have to work for them. The more people who freeride, the less sunset there will be.

The solution is... don't have public goods. Or if you have public goods, common goods, divide them up into private goods. This is why private property is more efficient. If you mine sunrocks for your private sunset than you will be fine. You won't be able to freeride.

The public goods issue seems to be more of a reason for a free market than not. Maybe thats what you're saying.

The problem is that some kinds of things are by their very nature public goods. A public good is not "something that the government provides" (although the government tends to provide them). Rather it is a good which has the property of
1. Not being excludable (you can't put a fence around it and charge admission)
2. Non-rival in consumption (your consumption doesn't take away from mine)

Living without an entire class of goods is hardly a fine way to run a society. It is good for some people whose preference structures are okay with doing without them, but not others, and so an anarchic society fails on utilitarian criteria. The issue with the sunlight example is that no single person can mine enough sun-rocks on their own - you need a large number of people to do it. Everybody wants somebody else to do it, and so you don't get sun-rocks.

What are some real-world examples of this? Innovations have positive spill-overs to other industries, that are not captured by firms themselves. For instance, you wouldn't get the great leaps in biotechnology without the improvements in computer technology. As a result, the government subsidizes research. If you just had firms making decisions based on their own narrow interests, they would under-invest in R&D - because there would be no mechanism to benefit them for spillovers. In other cases, the social benefit of say, a particular product, is much larger than the private profit (the vacuum cleaner, for instance, is the real driving force behind women's rights, and the movement of women into the workplace). But if vacuum companies can't capture their profits they are less likely to make vacuums.

The other issue has to deal with extreme long-term benefits to R&D (or anything else, R&D is just a good example). You wouldn't have IT without the military investment in ARPAnet. Corporations do not have a long enough time horizon to lay down large amounts of capital for projects of dubious returns - for instance, basic research (this is research that is unlikely to result in marketable products in the near future - eg. space technology). Nonetheless, it is self-evident that say, in the future, mankind would be better off if it could colonize space.

The other thing is that without government you don't have property rights - everything becomes a common pool resource. Imagine a field where multiple farmers have herds of cattle. Each farmer has an incentive to over-graze, because they know if they don't, other farmers will, and they will have nothing. Farmers can agree to not overgraze, but that doesn't mean they won't. I have memories of preemptively sneaking cookies at home because if I didn't, my brothers would. You need a leviathan to deal with those situations, making the best long-term decision.

Markets are very efficient, within parameters. You need a government to nudge the marketplace every now and then, and pick up the slack where private firms - by their very nature - are unlikely to be able to provide optimal results.





eternaltriangle added to this post, 1 minutes and 25 seconds later...

Oh and you can't always turn public goods into private goods. Eg. sunlight, or clean air. You can sometimes simulate a market (for instance with an emissions trading system for clean air), but that requires government.

[ArchonAlarion]

Well my question would be which is worse; Not mining sunrocks if you don't want too, or forcing people to mine sunrocks even if they don't want to?

Also, although I understand your argument, I think that the market has never really had the chance to solve the public goods problem. Its been the states' thing. 100 years ago, most people would never have imagined computers or cell phones, but we have them now. If there is a demand for something, than someone, somewhere will eventually supply it.

I disagree with your opinion on R&D. If people want something, than it is marketable. The company which markets something first has an advantage over slower moving companies. What kind of space technologly would businesses not be interested in? I see a very good reason for R&D. Like I said, the business that invents/discovers first is going to have more advanced products than competitors.

I understand the public goods problem, but I think that the market will find ways around it. As long as people see it as a problem, than there will be demand to fix it. My main point is that if it could never be solvable under anarchy and we'd suffer more from having anarchy than not, than I wouldn't support anarchy. However, I don't think we should just throw up our hands and give up because we can't predict how the free market will work, in a situation which the free market has never had the chance to work.

[eternaltriangle]

"Well my question would be which is worse; Not mining sunrocks if you don't want too, or forcing people to mine sunrocks even if they don't want to?"

Ah, the taxes are slavery argument. It depends upon the utility of sunshine, versus the dis-utility of work. How ever would we determine that? Through elections. The plus side of taxes are that not everybody needs to work in the mines. Moreover, some public goods, eg. roads, are necessary in the first place for economic activity to take place.

Lets look at some numbers comparing economic growth prior to and after the New Deal launched socialism in America. While it would be incorrect to say there was no government before FDR, it was certainly a pretty small one.

Economic growth (per capita, from Angus Maddison, OECD economist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):
1860-1932: 1.1%/annum
1933-2003: 2.6%/annum

Incomes grew over twice as fast (and better than that when you consider compounding). This means that even if some people had to give up some of their income to taxation, they were better off nonetheless, than they would have been otherwise without government.

Lets make some dramatic assumptions to demonstrate my point. Lets say you make 100 dollars a year. This income is taxed at 0%, but the government provides only a minimal level of services, and does not subsidize R&D, etc. As a result, the rate of economic growth is only 1.1%. It is 1932 now, if you continue working till 2003 (you always ate your vegetables), you now make $217.44.

Now, lets say the government decides to tax your disgustingly high $100 income at a rate of 50%, in order to pay for research subsidies, etc. which raise the rate of economic growth to 2.6%/annum. Your pre-tax income is $618.68, and after taxes (in 2003) you make 309.34. So although the government taxes ("enslaves") you more, you have a higher disposable income, and greater material freedom to do what you want.

"but markets can provide public goods if given the chance"

Well they can, but somewhat... badly - ie. they do not provide the socially optimal level of those public goods (especially R&D). Why?

1. Sometimes the return on an investment is so far in the future that no firm would ever make such a choice. You argued that corporations will want to go to space, because it is profitable. The thing is that before you go to Alpha Centauri you have to go to Mars. Before that, the moon. Unfortunately the economic benefit of doing so is small, and the costs are prohibitively high. Each corporation will want other companies to pick up the cost of those initial investments. The space analogy can be pushed towards things like theoretical physics as well. The development of science requires many scientists standing on the shoulders of others - it takes a long time for ideas to become marketable. If I were a company the ideal situation would be for others to pay for the initial costs of development, while I came in at the end. Or in other words, how come Einstein didn't become a billionaire?

2. There is also the issue of economies of scale. Private firms are often too small to do things on a sufficient scale. Moreover, competition breeds duplication of services, where the same thing is being done by multiple actors. Without patents (ie. government), scientific discoveries would be trade secrets. You would have to reinvent the wheel on a constant basis, so to speak. Some activities are more economically efficient to provide through a single agent - think about people's healthcare information. Is it better that multiple firms have to communicate amongst each other to fix my broken leg, or that a single government agency has the information in their databases already?

3. Private markets will not be able to provide public goods because it is not profitable to do so. If you can't exclude one person from using the good, then nobody will pay for it. If you can exclude it, then it is no longer a public good. In that instance, social utility is clearly reduced, however. Many people that could not pay for the good, enjoyed it when it was public. Their consumption of it did not take away from anybody else's. Making a public good private is stealing in a sense, and denies access to many that would benefit from its consumption. Moreover, this approach is not always possible - you can't, for instance, sell clean air. Dealing with negative externalities (eg. pollution, loud noises) similarly, involves violations of property rights that require courts to arbitrate. In many cases, however, those affected are so numerous that it is more efficient to simply tax offenders, and spend the proceeds of the tax on the public good.

4. Finally, private markets will provide public goods reflecting skewed preferences. If we want to produce a socially optimal result, it should only be fair that we weight the happiness of all individuals equally. Because markets respond to profits, rather than votes, the public goods they will provide will reflect the tastes of those with more money. Thus, for instance, we have substantial investment in viagra, with comparatively less in say, malaria or AIDs treatments (which would clearly be more useful from a global point of view).

Just as you can't expect a fish to ride a bicycle, you can't expect markets to do everything. That said, the real debate then becomes one of what goods are public goods, and which are private? We may differ radically on that score - although I suspect my preferences are not far off from yours (I think government is too big - the US has a middle class welfare state that neither uplifts the poor, nor maximizes productivity). On the other hand we may differ on the goal of the state - for me it is maximizing utility, for you it might be maximizing liberty.

[Sylvanus]

@ eternal

inflation (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Statistics on Inflation, 1946-1997

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These statistics are taken from various sources. The basic inflation numbers may be found on the Internet at the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. The inflation rate is given after the inflation level, which itself is a precentage of the average of the years 1982-1984 (1982-84=100%). Double figures are artifacts of changes in statistical methods or of contradictory information. Note that 1967 prices are about a third of 82/84 prices and 1995 prices about 3/2 of those.



15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85%
1946 18.2 = 18.1%
1947 21.5 = 10.2%
1948 23.7 = 1.3%
1949 24.0 = -2.1%
1950 23.5 = 8.1%
1951 25.4 = 4.3%/5.9%
1952 26.5 = 0.3%
1953 26.6 = 1.1%
1954 26.9 = -0.7%
1955 26.7 = 0.4%
1956 26.8 = 3.0%
1957 27.6 = 3.6%
1958 28.6 = 1.4%
1959 29.0 = 1.0%
1960 29.3 = 1.7%
1961 29.8 = 0.7%
1962 30.0 = 1.3%
1963 30.4 = 1.6%
1964 30.9 = 1.0%
1965 31.2 = 1.9%
1966 31.8 = 3.5%
1967 32.9 = 3.6%
1968 34.1 = 4.4%
1969 35.6 = 6.2%
1970 37.8 = 5.3%
1971 39.8 = 3.3%
1972 41.1 = 3.6%
1973 42.6 = 9.4%
1974 46.6 = 11.8%/12.2%
1975 52.1 = 6.7%
1976 55.6 = 5.2%
1977 58.5 = 6.8%
1978 62.5 = 9.3%
1979 68.3 = 13.9%/13.3%
1980 77.8 = 11.8%/12.4%

85% 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% 115% 120% 125% 130% 135% 140% 145% 150% 155% 160%
1981 87.0 = 8.4%
1982 94.3 = 3.7%
1983 97.8 = 4.2%
1984 101.9 = 3.5%
1985 105.5 = 3.9%
1986 109.6 = 1.5%
1987 111.2 = 4.0%
1988 115.7 = 4.7%
1989 121.1 = 5.2%
1990 127.4 = 5.7%
1991 134.6 = 2.6%
1992 138.1 = 3.3%
1993 142.6 = 2.5%
1994 146.2 = 2.8%
1995 150.3 = 2.7%
1996 154.4
1997 160.0



This is post WW2 data, because the war caused price controls and such, it screws with the data. This is a 145% increase over 51 years, averaging 2.8% a year. With a 2.6% per year increase in earned income, this means we're behind by .2% a year.

[eternaltriangle]

Which is why Angus Maddison uses chained 1990 Geary-Khamis dollars - or, in other words, he accounts for inflation and uses real dollars.

I would add that the inflation of the 1970's was largely a result of inadequate monetary theory, that didn't account for the role expectations play in driving prices, as well as changes in the money supply. Since the inception of greater central bank independence, and better theory, inflation - in spite of government (if you are arguing that big government causes inflation) has been stable.

[Sylvanus]

Which is why Angus Maddison uses chained 1990 Geary-Khamis dollars - or, in other words, he accounts for inflation and uses real dollars.

I would add that the inflation of the 1970's was largely a result of inadequate monetary theory, that didn't account for the role expectations play in driving prices, as well as changes in the money supply. Since the inception of greater central bank independence, and better theory, inflation - in spite of government (if you are arguing that big government causes inflation) has been stable.

My argument is that although you state the average wage has been rising faster since FDR's New Deal, inflation has been rising faster than income, meaning realized income is going down. I didn't research anything prior to WWII, so I don't know how it compares. Perhaps I will later if no one else does. I am not saying big government drives inflation, only that it destroys incentives to work, and average income is lower than it would be in a better environment. Although I am no expert, I would also argue that the Fed is the driving force behind inflation, and therefore the rapid rise in income we see after 1923 (created in 1913, took a much larger role after the beginning of the depression).

[eternaltriangle]

My argument is that although you state the average wage has been rising faster since FDR's New Deal, inflation has been rising faster than income, meaning realized income is going down. I didn't research anything prior to WWII, so I don't know how it compares. Perhaps I will later if no one else does. I am not saying big government drives inflation, only that it destroys incentives to work, and average income is lower than it would be in a better environment. Although I am no expert, I would also argue that the Fed is the driving force behind inflation, and therefore the rapid rise in income we see after 1923 (created in 1913, took a much larger role after the beginning of the depression).

I know that, the data I am using accounts for inflation.

The causes of inflation are many - money creation is one of them. That doesn't mean inflation didn't exist before, what existed before was no long-term inflation. That is, on average, you would expect a dollar to be a dollar 100 years in the future. In a given year, however, fluctuations were much higher than now, and wreaked havoc on people.

The inflation problems of the 1970's and 1980's stemmed from the fallacy of the Philips Curve. Philips argued that governments could essentially pick a rate of inflation and unemployment. He was right that the two were related (this is what bugs me about gold standard folks - you get rid of monetary policy, and you get rid of a powerful counter-cyclical weapon), but wrong that the relationship was inherently stable. From 1850-1950, broadly speaking, long term inflation had been zero (the wars taking place tended to bring it up, but peacetime tended to counteract that). However, full employment policies continuously drove up inflation and expectations of inflation, such that labour unions demanded an inflation factor in negotiations, businesses factored rising costs (in the long term) into their prices. This, coupled with the oil shock, and the government decision to combat the unemployment coming in the wake of the end of the 60's boom, caused inflation to rise. This was not remedied till tight money policies in the 80's, and a move towards explicit targets. Central banks have gained a lot of credibility since then, moreover, making the cost of targets lower, since markets rapidly respond to say, announcements of rate cuts.

But inflation, in the big picture, doesn't matter (unless you are carting around money in wheel-barrows). Incidentally a lot of the things that seem to bother hardcore libertarians don't matter nearly as much as they think. The trouble is that American libertarians are overly caught up in the 19th century - a century when the needs of entrepreneurs were small. Think of what it took to build the first plane, or to innovate the spinning jenny (to go to the pinnacle of 18th century technology). By contrast, innovations like electricity, chemistry, aerospace and the automobile did not lend themselves to the small, responsive and highly competitive firms envisioned by most. They were big oligopolies or, at times, monopolies. Rather than non-interference, the economies of scale in those industries, and the need for educated workers, technology policy, industry policy and subsidies.

Take MITI (the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry), which played an active job picking winners, subsidizing them, and forcing technology-sharing among the massive keiretsu firms. After WWII Japan had a real GDP per capita of $1346 (1990 dollars), down from $2874 before the war. Today they are one of the most advanced and wealthy economies of the world. They didn't do this by ignoring markets and trade, but government played an active role in this transition (as did the USSR in its initially successful economic transition to an industrial economy).

However, both Japan and the USSR hit a wall because they couldn't do IT. In the end, the American model of less government may have something to it. My point is this, no one system of economic management (including not managing the economy) is likely to work for all time and space. Different industries, and the assumptions that underly them mean a changing world, and demand changing policies that provide the public goods necessary for growth (and eliminate those that are now redundant).

[Theodoric]

From Wikipedia:

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Middle Ages and Age of Enlightenment.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.

Libertarianism is a broad collection of political philosophies possessing the common themes of limited government and strong individual liberty. Libertarianism's ideals, although often varied in detail, typically center on policies in favor of extensive personal liberties (e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom of ownership), rejecting compulsory socialism and communism in favor of allowing private property (whether being held on an individual basis or in collective by a group of individuals), promoting personal responsibility and private charity and opposing welfare statism.

So from the actual definitions there is little difference between the two concepts. A true liberal is really not much different than a libertarian. The reason why there is such a heated debate is due to American politics yet again redefining groups.

Socialist idealists, mostly boomers in the far left of the Democrat party, have hijacked the term Liberal and applied it to themselves. This is probably because Socialism and Communism for about 70 years have been the most vilified movements in American history. However, even the Liberals have started to cast off their old label and adopt the mantel of Progressive, which is rather funny due to the fact that most Socialist societies in the past have been nothing but regressive. It is also good to note that some Conservatives have latched onto Libertarian ideas due to libertarianism being claimed to be the philosophy advocated by Thomas Jefferson and several of the Founding Fathers.

[Lights]

I would love to see someone provide proof that the world "liberal" was "hijacked" by the left. My feeling is it was imposed on the left by right wingers who wanted to denote the left as "morally permissive". Now that libertarianism is on the uprise, they are claiming the left stole the term from them. :laugh:

However, the modern definition of liberal comes in two flavors. Those who are "tolerant to change" and those who believe in "freedom of individual choice". That is the division of the modern liberal (social democrat) and the modern libertarian. And it all comes down to an argument of the role of the state in the economy.

The only reason there is bad blood between the groups, is the reality that most libertarians are in fact, conservatives, and are in no way, "tolerant to change". The only change they embrace, is a decrease of the role the state plays in the economy. :laugh:

I've met true libertarians, and they actively promote civil liberties (such as marching in gay pride parades) while at the same time promoting a free market. They are nothing like the right wing wolves in libertarian clothing that claim to be "true liberals" on this site.

[prometheus]

I would love to see someone provide proof that the world "liberal" was "hijacked" by the left. My feeling is it was imposed on the left by right wingers who wanted to denote the left as "morally permissive". Now that libertarianism is on the uprise, they are claiming the left stole the term from them. :laugh:

However, the modern definition of liberal comes in two flavors. Those who are "tolerant to change" and those who believe in "freedom of individual choice". That is the division of the modern liberal (social democrat) and the modern libertarian. And it all comes down to an argument of the role of the state in the economy.

The only reason there is bad blood between the groups, is the reality that most libertarians are in fact, conservatives, and are in no way, "tolerant to change". The only change they embrace, is a decrease of the role the state plays in the economy. :laugh:

I've met true libertarians, and they actively promote civil liberties (such as marching in gay pride parades) while at the same time promoting a free market. They are nothing like the right wing wolves in libertarian clothing that claim to be "true liberals" on this site.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Redefinition of liberalism from laissez-faire form to interventionist form

The cause(s) of the shift in liberalism in the United States "between 1877 and 1937...from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism" has been a subject of study among scholars.[39]

The Industrial Revolution greatly increased material wealth, but made social problems, such as pollution, child labor, and overcrowding in the cities, more visible. Material and scientific progress led to greater longevity and a reduced mortality rate. The population increased dramatically, as technology improved agricultural output, millions more could survive whereas a century before they would have perished. As F.A. Hayek noted,

"The proletariat which capitalism can be said to have 'created' was thus not a proportion of the population which would have existed without it and which it had degraded to a lower level; it was an additional population which was enabled to grow up by the new opportunities for employment which capitalism provided."[40]

Increased agricultural output through technology reduced the labor necessary for farming creating a migration of labor from rural to urban areas. The industrial revolution saw for the first time rising demands for food and decreasing food prices.[27] Labor wages, in fact did not decline, but rose above inflation, despite a decrease in the hours worked by labor and an increase in the labor supply.[41] Wages saw a steady increase, without government assistance, prior to the introduction of a national minimum wage.[42] The industrial revolution also saw a shift of child labor from farms to factories, but also saw a decline in the use of child labor prior to government laws banning child labor, as wealth and productivity increased, thus allowing parents to send children to school rather than work to earn for the family.[41] Many laissez-faire economists felt that these problems of industrial society would correct themselves without government action. In fact, this was occurring, just not in the manner and style hoped by progressive reformers.[41][27]

Alexis de Tocqueville illuminated the events of the early industrial revolution and why wealthy societies became more concerned with the poor, stating,

“The progress of civilization…brings society to alleviate miseries which are not even thought about in less civilized societies. In a country where the majority is ill-clothed, ill-housed, ill-fed, who thinks of giving clean clothes, healthy food, comfortable quarters to the poor? The majority of the English, having all these things, regard their absence as a frightful misfortune; society believes itself bound to come to the aid of those who lack them, and cures evils which are not even recognized elsewhere.”[43]

Alexis de Tocqueville's insight supports Milton Friedman’s idea that the industrial revolution did not create more poverty as was claimed by Progressives of the time, but created more visible poor.[44]

In the 19th century, the voting franchise in most democracies was extended, and these newly enfranchised citizens often voted in favor of government intervention into the economy. Rising literacy rates and the spread of knowledge led to social activism in a variety of forms. Those calling themselves progressives, called for laws against child labor and laws requiring minimum standards of worker safety. The laissez faire economic liberals considered such measures to be an unjust imposition upon liberty, as well as a hindrance to economic development. This 19th century social liberalism is considered as the first significant split of modern liberalism from "classical liberalism." In 1911, L. T. Hobhouse published Liberalism, which summarized what social liberals believe is a "new liberalism," including qualified acceptance of government intervention in the economy, and the collective right to equality in dealings, what he called "just consent". So different from classical liberalism did Hayek see Hobhouse's book that he commented that it would have been more accurately titled Socialism instead.[45] (Hobhouse called his beliefs "liberal socialism".)

In some European countries the term "liberalism" refers mostly to what is called "libertarianism" in the United States, i.e., European "liberalism" is most often in favor of a free market-economy and a more restricted government.

In Australia the major conservative party is called the Liberal Party of Australia, where "liberal" was chosen to refer back to the old Commonwealth Liberal Party and also to distinguish it from the "socialist" Labor Party. However, because of familiarity with contemporary US usage, the term "liberal" can take on a variety of meanings ranging from member or supporter of the Liberal party, to classical liberal, to "liberal" in the contemporary American sense (i.e. modern liberalism).

[edit] Disputes over whether modern liberalism is derived from classical liberalism

Whether modern liberalism is founded upon the philosophy of classical liberalism is a subject of dispute. Scholar Leonard Liggio (a self-described classical liberal) holds that modern liberalism does not share the same intellectual foundations as classical liberalism. He says,

"Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. Happily they did not capture it in Europe, and were glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are."

He believes that this is why liberalism means something different in Europe from in America.[46] Proponents of the Austrian School and the Chicago School (sometimes called neo-classical economists), such as Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek, also reject claims that modern liberalism represents a continuous development from classical liberalism.[47][48] According to Friedman,

"Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism against which classical liberalism fought. In the very act of turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism, he is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!"[49]

Neo-classical economists instead see themselves as the true inheritors of classical liberalism. For example, Hayek argued that he was not a conservative because he was a liberal, and had refused to give up that label to what he considered to be modern usurpers.[50]

Joseph Schumpeter stated, "As a supreme, if unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label," implying that modern liberals have "stolen" the word and given it a definition opposite its original meaning.

Daniel Yergin, a Pulitzer prize winning author, and Joseph Stanislaw write on the subject of the changed meaning of liberalism in America,

"In the 1920s, the New York Times criticized "the expropriation of the time-honored word 'liberal'" and argued that "the radical red school of thought...hand back the word 'liberal' to its original owners.""[51]

Following from this New York Times criticism, they argue that leading Progressive writers used the word liberal as a "substitute for progressivism, which had become tarnished by its association with their fallen hero, Theodore Roosevelt." They also concur with F.A. Hayek view (in his essay "Why I Am Not a Conservative") that Franklin Roosevelt adopted the term to "ward off accusations of being left-wing" [with Roosevelt] declaring that liberalism was "plain English for a changed concept of the duty and responsibility of government toward economic life."[51]

Modern liberals, beginning perhaps with T. H. Green in late 19th century Britain (and anticipated in their criticisms though not their prescriptions by historical classical liberals such as John Stuart Mill), have replied that their liberalism was consistent with the central values of classical liberalism as opposed to the ways those values had often been applied. Their position can be summarized as follows: 1) coercion of the individual could come not only from government but also from private industry despite the pretence of contractual agreement, so limits to the power of private industry were needed just as they were for government; 2) liberalism was concerned ultimately not with freedom from constraint—i.e. negative freedom—but with individual autonomy—i.e. positive freedom—to which negative freedom vis a vis the state was but a means rather than an end in itself, and that means was insufficient and in some cases actually an obstacle to the maximizing of freedom for all through conditions of reduced economic and social inequalities.

John McGowan, distinguished professor of the humanities, asserts that the modern liberalism in the United States evolved from the liberalism of the Founding Fathers. McGowan points out that the Founding Fathers were willing to have government regulate the economy, with laissez faire capitalist ideology not becoming as prominent as in Europe until the gilded age. The willingness of American liberals can be traced to the desire to distribute power as widely as possible and keep all power within a system of checks and balances. Modern American liberals seek to prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of an economic elite and balance the power of market forces and businesses against that of government, so that no source of power may go unchecked. Moreover, modern American liberals see government regulation of certain aspects of the economy as essential towards providing positive freedom.[52]





prometheus added to this post, 8 minutes and 37 seconds later...

There is a rich history of changing the meanings of words to corrupt thought.

"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

[Tual]

I've met true libertarians, and they actively promote civil liberties (such as marching in gay pride parades) while at the same time promoting a free market. They are nothing like the right wing wolves in libertarian clothing that claim to be "true liberals" on this site.

If you don't support civil liberties you are obviously not a libertarian (over here we just call it liberal). A libertarian values individual choice above all else (as long as it doesn't impeach on other people their rights of individual choice), if as an example, you are against gay rights you do not believe in free choice (what consenting people do in their bedroom does not effect others), hence you are not a libertarian.

[thod]

In a totalitarian regime we see the individual subsumed by the state. Yet the state acts in the best interests of all and not the individual. Thus the individual may be at a disadvantage. If you reverse it and allow each individual to attain his own best position then you end up with with a sub optimal state. Some organization is always going to be needed to prevent the tragedy of the commons and thus suppression of individual liberties.

Having the right to do something, a civil liberty is not the same as having the power to do it. Thus in the case of the nineteenth century mill owners they controlled all the wealth and the workers were forced in near slavery. A more modern example would be you have the right to build your own house and grow your own crops but you lack the resources to do either.

Thus the argument is not only about rights but about empowerment.

[prometheus]

In a totalitarian regime we see the individual subsumed by the state. Yet the state acts in the best interests of all and not the individual. Thus the individual may be at a disadvantage. If you reverse it and allow each individual to attain his own best position then you end up with with a sub optimal state. Some organization is always going to be needed to prevent the tragedy of the commons and thus suppression of individual liberties.



Just to pick a couple of high profile cases. In what way was the state acting in the best interest of all when it gassed and burnt all the children at Mt. Caramel in Waco? Or when it shot the baby of Randy Weaver in her mother's arms?



Having the right to do something, a civil liberty is not the same as having the power to do it. Thus in the case of the nineteenth century mill owners they controlled all the wealth and the workers were forced in near slavery. A more modern example would be you have the right to build your own house and grow your own crops but you lack the resources to do either.


Thus the argument is not only about rights but about empowerment.


This is was all done by me..........you were saying?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here is but one of the crops I grow.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[thod]

In what way was the state acting in the best interest of all when it gassed and burnt all the children at Mt. Caramel in Waco

A criminal cannot be allowed to evade the law because of firepower. After shooting up the FBI agents with automatic weapons they had little choice but to bring in the army. Likewise having the women and children act as shield for the gunmen in the hope that will prevent action wont work. They were not hostages. If you allow this every drug lord will be in an armed compound with surrounding women. The same argument would be if they were not allowed to check your pants for explosives in the airport, every terrorist would simply carry them in his pants. I am reminded of the wild west where the gunmen thought they were above the law because they had guns.

You are fortunate to live in Montana where you can buy an acre of land for a dime. Where I live an acre of land with permission to build would cost about $2-3 million.

[prometheus]

A criminal cannot be allowed to evade the law because of firepower. After shooting up the FBI agents with automatic weapons they had little choice but to bring in the army. Likewise having the women and children act as shield for the gunmen in the hope that will prevent action wont work. They were not hostages. If you allow this every drug lord will be in an armed compound with surrounding women. The same argument would be if they were not allowed to check your pants for explosives in the airport, every terrorist would simply carry them in his pants. I am reminded of the wild west where the gunmen thought they were above the law because they had guns. I suggest you watch this:To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Also, did you know when the ATF RAN OUT OF AMMO, the Davidians stopped shooting back and allowed them to recover their wounded for medical treatment. I see you didn't address the Weavers. Here is some more info on them: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Do you think what our government is doing in the middle east is for the good of all?

[thod]

No survivalists home is complete without some kind of basement for food storage and to outlast the nuclear bombs.

I have a few problems with it. That hill at the back with the concrete retaining wall is the obvious angle of attack since they could approach under cover of the lip of the hill and shoot down. I presume this is an intentional trap in that you will lay explosives there. Then the wooded frame construction instead of concrete weakens it to the inevitable firebombs.

[Theodoric]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Redefinition of liberalism from laissez-faire form to interventionist form...

There is a rich history of changing the meanings of words to corrupt thought.

"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

Thank you, prometheus, for expounding upon my previous statement.





Theodoric added to this post, 58 minutes and 9 seconds later...


The only reason there is bad blood between the groups, is the reality that most libertarians are in fact, conservatives, and are in no way, "tolerant to change". The only change they embrace, is a decrease of the role the state plays in the economy. :laugh:

I've met true libertarians, and they actively promote civil liberties (such as marching in gay pride parades) while at the same time promoting a free market. They are nothing like the right wing wolves in libertarian clothing that claim to be "true liberals" on this site.

If you could back up your claims and speculations I might be inclined to believe you. However, I have yet to see in any of the posts or opinions of others that promote free market enterprise and less government involvement.

[Calaveras]

I'm new here and therefore late to this party and there are so many points I could comment on. I've discussed these subjects for years on a private list. Since this was originally about liberalism vs libertarianism I'll come back to that.

I'm a libertarian. My problem with modern liberals (besides the fact they're basically socialists) is that they have no definable core principles. Libertarians have a well defined set of principles. If an issue comes up that I have not considered before, I use libertarian principles to decide how that issue should be handled.

I don't see anything like this coming from modern liberals. Liberal principles are things like "we care about people." That's completely subjective. Who knows what that means to anybody?

Liberals seem to be a loose association of people whose position on each issue is decided by how they FEEL about it. Of course, to me, this is no way to form your opinions on issues. Liberals can agree or disagree on many different issues but for a wide variety of reasons. I think you'll find that libertarians agree on issues for basically the same reasons. And where there are disagreements, they'll be over relatively fine points.

Somewhere in this thread I saw libertarians being described as anarchists. I've seen this accusation before. It is not true. We believe government is necessary but it's prime role should be to protect individual rights (which includes property rights), protect individuals against fraud, crime, etc., and defend the country. We do not believe it's government's responsibility to provide things for the people, spread democracy around the world, or anything like that.

C.

[Capwolf]

I'm new here and therefore late to this party and there are so many points I could comment on. I've discussed these subjects for years on a private list. Since this was originally about liberalism vs libertarianism I'll come back to that.

I'm a libertarian. My problem with modern liberals (besides the fact they're basically socialists) is that they have no definable core principles. Libertarians have a well defined set of principles. If an issue comes up that I have not considered before, I use libertarian principles to decide how that issue should be handled.

I don't see anything like this coming from modern liberals. Liberal principles are things like "we care about people." That's completely subjective. Who knows what that means to anybody?

Liberals seem to be a loose association of people whose position on each issue is decided by how they FEEL about it. Of course, to me, this is no way to form your opinions on issues. Liberals can agree or disagree on many different issues but for a wide variety of reasons. I think you'll find that libertarians agree on issues for basically the same reasons. And where there are disagreements, they'll be over relatively fine points.

Can't you just think it through based on the evidence? I mean, do you really need a "core principle" from an outside source to apply to the situation to get a handle on it? Also, I definitely don't think libertarians basically agree--for example, Ron Paul called himself libertarian.

If you want to bring feeling into it, I've met many libertarians--and it looks to me like there are at least a few on this board--who espouse libertarian ideas because they "feel" right. No one's going to admit that, because everyone thinks he's thought out his position. Whatever, I don't care whether people feel it out or think it through; I care whether the results are good when they're done.

I hesitate to put myself on the "liberal" or the "libertarian" side these days, because ideally I would like fewer stupid laws and less structure and a fair shot for everyone, but this is the issue: where many libertarians see an "even playing field" that they want to preserve so that everyone can participate on merit, many liberals see underlying systemic bias and favoritism that's invisible to the people who benefit, and wish to level the playing field so that everyone can participate on merit. The problem isn't lack of thought, corruption, selfishness/laziness, or whatever--or at least, not on any one side more than the other. The problem is that the same reality looks different to each group, and both groups believe that they're seeing clearly.

[Calaveras]

Can't you just think it through based on the evidence? I mean, do you really need a "core principle" from an outside source to apply to the situation to get a handle on it? Also, I definitely don't think libertarians basically agree--for example, Ron Paul called himself libertarian.

Evidence? I'm not sure exactly what you mean. It sounds like you want to evaluate each situation on its own. Doesn't sound much different than how you feel about it.

I did not evaluate Ron Paul point by point against official Libertarian party positions but he sounded pretty close. I knew he had no chance.

If you want to bring feeling into it, I've met many libertarians--and it looks to me like there are at least a few on this board--who espouse libertarian ideas because they "feel" right. No one's going to admit that, because everyone thinks he's thought out his position.

Libertarianism is very close to the U.S. Constitution and that's where I'm coming from. I don't remember anything in particular that is inconsistent with our constitution. If you're in another country then maybe your view is different.

Whatever, I don't care whether people feel it out or think it through; I care whether the results are good when they're done.

Then you really ought to be on board with limited government considering the poor outcomes of so many things decided by them. :)

I hesitate to put myself on the "liberal" or the "libertarian" side these days, because ideally I would like fewer stupid laws and less structure and a fair shot for everyone, but this is the issue: where many libertarians see an "even playing field" that they want to preserve so that everyone can participate on merit, many liberals see underlying systemic bias and favoritism that's invisible to the people who benefit, and wish to level the playing field so that everyone can participate on merit. The problem isn't lack of thought, corruption, selfishness/laziness, or whatever--or at least, not on any one side more than the other. The problem is that the same reality looks different to each group, and both groups believe that they're seeing clearly.

I've heard this sort of general argument before. If you have some examples of what you mean I might be able to address them.

C.

[Claptonian]

I hesitate to put myself on the "liberal" or the "libertarian" side these days, because ideally I would like fewer stupid laws and less structure and a fair shot for everyone, but this is the issue: where many libertarians see an "even playing field" that they want to preserve so that everyone can participate on merit, many liberals see underlying systemic bias and favoritism that's invisible to the people who benefit, and wish to level the playing field so that everyone can participate on merit. The problem isn't lack of thought, corruption, selfishness/laziness, or whatever--or at least, not on any one side more than the other. The problem is that the same reality looks different to each group, and both groups believe that they're seeing clearly.

This is basically the debate between vulgar libertarians and left libertarians.

Vulgar libertarians are like what you describe: they fail to fully recognize the issues facing the poor, the corruption ingrained in many major corporations, and many also like to think that America has a genuine free market system. Left libertarians are more liberal, but without sacrificing the values of libertarianism. They believe the system, which is encouraged and enforced by the government, is biased against many groups and they recognize that many big companies use the system to their advantage. Therefore, they fully grasp that this is not a free market system.

To suffice, not all libertarians hate poor people and love big corporations. ;)