Economic Freedom vs Social justice

[mrmazoo]

Which do you think is more important, economic freedom or social justice, and why?

It is my belief that this question gets to the heart of the fundamental disagreement between the Right and the Left. Do you agree? If not, what do you think is the fundamental disagreement?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Which do you think is more important, economic freedom or social justice, and why?

It is my belief that this question gets to the heart of the fundamental disagreement between the Right and the Left. Do you agree? If not, what do you think is the fundamental disagreement?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I think that is a major distinction between Right and Left, but it encompasses more than just economic issues. Another way of looking at it is to observe that the Right is more desirous of equality of rights, whereas the Left is more desirous of equality of results.

My views, distilled, are essentially as follows: "Social Justice" is mostly nonsense. The only "justice" that really matters is the protection and preservation of individual rights, which form the basis of a free society, and from which all else flows.

"Society" is merely a collection of individuals. Protect the rights of each individual, and the rights of "society" are thereby automatically protected as well. Start trying to "protect" the rights of groups, and individuals will often get trampled.

There would be little or no need to worry about the "rights" of groups if individual rights were properly considered paramount and were protected in keeping with the Constitution and most Amendments.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Another way of looking at it is to observe that the Right is more desirous of equality of rights, whereas the Left is more desirous of equality of results.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, let me say that I think there's some truth here, but this statement really deserves much more inquiry.

To begin, you may want to define what you mean by Left and Right here, in order to get this platitude to have any meaning. If by the 'Right', you mean conservative -- conservatives have historically been much more concerned with social order, tradition, and heritage than they are with an equality of rights. I think it's fair to say that the Right has historically been much more supportive of laissez-faire capitalism than the Left has, but this doesn't necessarily mean they've historically been concerned with an equality of rights.

If by the 'Left', you mean the post-60s left -- much of "the Left" (and I say this with much hesistancy because there's no easy way to define the modern left) are in fact motivated as much by an equality of rights as they are with an equality of results -- you would, I think, be hard-pressed to find many on the American Left who openly (or clandestinley) advocate an equality of results; of course, most anything we might define as being of "the Left" has a history of strong labor activism, and therefore is somewhat sympathetic (if not openly supportive of socialism and/or communism), but it's not necessarily true that labor activism and egalitarianism go hand-in-hand – there are many who support labor activism, and find themselves on ”the Left” only as means to oppose wealth, power, and social order, and don’t necessarily find themselves sympathetic or supportive towards the egalitarian ends that you refer to. And again, I would point to the United States as paradigm for a fully industrialized society that has no serious labor activism, but that has many self-described leftists -- much to the curiousity of sociologists and political scientists alike, who have written rather lengthy tomes (and proposed various theories) to try to explain why the US lacks a serious labor movement that advocates egalitarian ends.

There’s such a disparate and incongruent beliefs within both the "Right" and the "Left" that I'm not sure cliches like "the Right supports equal rights, the Left supports equal results" means much of anything without further detail (much further detail).

[TomCollins]

Economic Freedom and Social Justice are one in the same.

[MMMMMM]

Hi DVaut1,

I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
My views, distilled, are essentially as follows: ...

[/ QUOTE ]

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi DVaut1,

I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
My views, distilled, are essentially as follows: ...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, okay -- but I would think it patently unfair (and relatively meaningless) if someone said:

"My views, distilled, are essentially as follows:

Right-wingers are Nazis"

...even if, of course, this contained some kernal of truth to it, as Nazis and other fascist movements are typically right-wing in nature.

So I suppose I could posit a bunch of vague generalities that are grossly disengenous at worst, and mischaracterize at best, so long as I add the caveat that these are my 'distilled' views -- but that wouldn't be particularly fair, honest, or worthwhile, IMO.

[Gunny Highway]

[ QUOTE ]
Economic Freedom and Social Justice are one in the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. They're exactly the same. Somehow some people seem to think that sticking their hand in my pocket equates to "social justice". How the hell is stealing just?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Economic Freedom and Social Justice are one in the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. They're exactly the same. Somehow some people seem to think that sticking their hand in my pocket equates to "social justice". How the hell is stealing just?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be a mistake to label tax policies as the only way in which we seek out social justice.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Economic Freedom and Social Justice are one in the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they aren't. There might be overlap between the two (traditional Venn diagram) or Economic Freedom might be a subset of Social Justice, but they aren't the same thing.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I think that is a major distinction between Right and Left, but it encompasses more than just economic issues. Another way of looking at it is to observe that the Right is more desirous of equality of rights, whereas the Left is more desirous of equality of results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of us believe that granting more rights will yield better results.

[Gunny Highway]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Economic Freedom and Social Justice are one in the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. They're exactly the same. Somehow some people seem to think that sticking their hand in my pocket equates to "social justice". How the hell is stealing just?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be a mistake to label tax policies as the only way in which we seek out social justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. They're not exactly the same, although I can't recall any policy aimed at correcting a "social injustice" that didn't involve someone sticking his hand in my pocket in one way or another.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't recall any policy aimed at correcting a "social injustice" that didn't involve someone sticking his hand in my pocket in one way or another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just off the top of my head, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

[adios]

I guess I'm being obtuse but what the heck. Please elaborate on what the terms "Economic Freedom" and "Social Justice" mean to you please.

[Gunny Highway]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't recall any policy aimed at correcting a "social injustice" that didn't involve someone sticking his hand in my pocket in one way or another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just off the top of my head, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not arguing whether the Act itself is just or unjust, but are you really arguing that implementation of this or any other law does not involve spending tax dollars?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not arguing whether the Act itself is just or unjust, but are you really arguing that implementation of this or any other law does not involve spending tax dollars?

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make it an "economic freedom issue"

[mrmazoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Economic Freedom and Social Justice are one in the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easy to see that the above is not true by just imagining if we let economic freedom go to the extreme.

How long would it take for monopolies to arise in every industry? Once monopolies arise, they can raise prices and lower wages at will since there are no government regulations. How could that lead to a socially just society?

Economic Freedom does not equal freedom. A person working at barely subsistence wages is not free to quit their job even if there is no law against quitting.

Freedom means the ability to do something without coercion. The threat of starvation, even the threat of poverty, is a type of coercion.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't recall any policy aimed at correcting a "social injustice" that didn't involve someone sticking his hand in my pocket in one way or another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just off the top of my head, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not arguing whether the Act itself is just or unjust, but are you really arguing that implementation of this or any other law does not involve spending tax dollars?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, of course the implementation of laws cost money - and the government generates revenue by taxation - so yes, certainly, implementing laws involves taxing you, and then spending what was taxed to execute and enforce said laws.

I think what you really meant to say, originally, was "I can't recall any policy that didn't involve someone sticking his hand in my pocket in one way or another"

...which more or less furthers my belief that this forum, and every thread on it, eventually transforms itself into the same, tired, banal discussion about the legitimacy of the state and taxation -- and why I find it hard to post in/read this forum anymore.

Mission accomplished, pvn.

/rant

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Economic Freedom and Social Justice are one in the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easy to see that the above is not true by just imagining if we let economic freedom go to the extreme.

How long would it take for monopolies to arise in every industry? Once monopolies arise, they can raise prices and lower wages at will since there are no government regulations. How could that lead to a socially just society?

Economic Freedom does not equal freedom. A person working at barely subsistence wages is not free to quit their job even if there is no law against quitting.

Freedom means the ability to do something without coercion. The threat of starvation, even the threat of poverty, is a type of coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG THERE WILL BE MONOPOLIES!!!! Alert the internet!

[mrmazoo]

I agree that the two ideas are rather nebulous.

I'll try to define them.

Economic Freedom - The ability to make economic decisions without government intervention.

Social Justice - The idea that people ought not to be rewarded or punished for circumstances they can't control (their race, their nationality, the economic success/failure of their parents, etc.).

I realize that these definitions leave a lot to disagree with. It's worth trying to define them.

I wish I had stated the question in terms of economic vs social PROGRESS, as I think those concepts are more easily defined.

[Gunny Highway]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not arguing whether the Act itself is just or unjust, but are you really arguing that implementation of this or any other law does not involve spending tax dollars?

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make it an "economic freedom issue"

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it does. The correction of "social injustices" via policy infringes on my "economic freedom".

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the two ideas are rather nebulous.

I'll try to define them.

Economic Freedom - The ability to make economic decisions without government intervention.

Social Justice - The idea that people ought not to be rewarded or punished for circumstances they can't control (their race, their nationality, the economic success/failure of their parents, etc.).

I realize that these definitions leave a lot to disagree with. It's worth trying to define them.

I wish I had stated the question in terms of economic vs social PROGRESS, as I think those concepts are more easily defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you use these definitions, do natural abilities come into play? So if someone is born a genius and cures cancer, they are getting an unfair advantage over someone born into the same circumstances, but with less intellect?

What about people of exact circumstances, but one works harder? Doesn't that mean that he was born with more natural ability to work harder? So no rewards for that.

It seems that with those definitions of Social Justice, it disregards all realities. Newsflash- people are born into different circumstances. They have different abilities.

Life is a game of poker. Some people run good, some people run bad. Some people get cold decked. Ain't no justice in poker, and ain't no justice in life. Trying to change that fact results in worse results for both.

[mrmazoo]

Good argument.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, okay -- but I would think it patently unfair (and relatively meaningless) if someone said:

"My views, distilled, are essentially as follows:

Right-wingers are Nazis"

...even if, of course, this contained some kernal of truth to it, as Nazis and other fascist movements are typically right-wing in nature.

So I suppose I could posit a bunch of vague generalities that are grossly disengenous at worst, and mischaracterize at best, so long as I add the caveat that these are my 'distilled' views -- but that wouldn't be particularly fair, honest, or worthwhile, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it would be, but I didn't do that.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I think that is a major distinction between Right and Left, but it encompasses more than just economic issues. Another way of looking at it is to observe that the Right is more desirous of equality of rights, whereas the Left is more desirous of equality of results.



[/ QUOTE ]
Some of us believe that granting more rights will yield better results.

[/ QUOTE ]

As do I.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
How long would it take for monopolies to arise in every industry?

[/ QUOTE ]

Never. Monopolies only come about because of government intervention.

[ QUOTE ]
Freedom means the ability to do something without coercion. The threat of starvation, even the threat of poverty, is a type of coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Freedom is the absense of violent, unjust, man-made coercion. You'll never be "free" of the need to eat, even if you are legally allowed to steal food from others.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
It's easy to see that the above is not true by just imagining if we let economic freedom go to the extreme.

How long would it take for monopolies to arise in every industry? Once monopolies arise, they can raise prices and lower wages at will since there are no government regulations. How could that lead to a socially just society?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe there would be lots of monopolies today if we let economic freedom go to any extreme. The economic and business base is far more diverse than it was 50 or 100 years ago, as is mobility, as are communications. In short it is now genrally easier for competition to arise (and to be effective) than it was many decades ago. Of course there may be a few niches where this isn't necessarily the case.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Just off the top of my head, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

[/ QUOTE ]

So increasing the population of tyrants is "social justice"?

[mrmazoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the two ideas are rather nebulous.

I'll try to define them.

Economic Freedom - The ability to make economic decisions without government intervention.

Social Justice - The idea that people ought not to be rewarded or punished for circumstances they can't control (their race, their nationality, the economic success/failure of their parents, etc.).

I realize that these definitions leave a lot to disagree with. It's worth trying to define them.

I wish I had stated the question in terms of economic vs social PROGRESS, as I think those concepts are more easily defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you use these definitions, do natural abilities come into play? So if someone is born a genius and cures cancer, they are getting an unfair advantage over someone born into the same circumstances, but with less intellect?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I believe that in a just world people ought to not be punished because they were not born a genius.

I'm not saying that a genius and a moron ought to be treated the same. Obviously, we should afford a genius with books and other resources that they need in order to realize their potential, but that isn't the same as rewarding them.

In the same way, I don't think that people who have mental disabilities ought to live on the edge of extreme poverty. Or, at least they shouldn't have to worry about losing their homes, or wondering where their next meal will come from. Ever.

[ QUOTE ]

What about people of exact circumstances, but one works harder? Doesn't that mean that he was born with more natural ability to work harder? So no rewards for that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, last time I checked, how hard someone works is something that is in their control.

[ QUOTE ]
They have different abilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that everyone should be equal. I'm saying that people shouldn't be rewarded or punished for things they don't have control over.


[ QUOTE ]

Life is a game of poker. Some people run good, some people run bad. Some people get cold decked. Ain't no justice in poker, and ain't no justice in life. Trying to change that fact results in worse results for both.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, what you are saying then, is that since life isn't fair, therefore we shouldn't try to make it fair. Right?

Well, that's the fallacy of going from an "is" to an "ought." I'm not asking how the world IS. I'm asking how we ought to try to make it.

[mrmazoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How long would it take for monopolies to arise in every industry?

[/ QUOTE ]

Never. Monopolies only come about because of government intervention.



[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon me if your saying it doesn't convince me.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just off the top of my head, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

[/ QUOTE ]

So increasing the population of tyrants is "social justice"?

[/ QUOTE ]

If voting is tyranny, I think it can only be described as just that we let minorities play tyrant and join in the fun of oppressing you, too.

It's only fair.

[TomCollins]

A few quick replies.

If you deny that how lazy/hardworking someone is not at least somewhat genetic/taught at a young age, so be it. It's certainly a factor. Some people are naturally harder workers. It's like saying that the best athletes in the world are that way because they train so hard. Sure, that's part of it, but a lot of it is natural ability. It's a mix.

I'm not talking about giving geniuses extra benefits. I'm talking about giving them the same education, same benefits. And when they cure cancer, or create a profitable business, they reap the profits. Nothing more.

I suppose if you can change human nature, go for it. But until you can, ought must comply with the rules of nature and man's natural state. Ought is a personal ideal, and surely we have different ideals. But if you have one that is in direct conflict of human nature, it will surely produce worse results.

[mrmazoo]

So now you are basing the equivalency of economic freedom and social justice on your belief (ie. your gut feeling) that monopolies will not arise if we allow economic freedom to go to an extreme.

That's like believing the war in Iraq was a good idea if your gut tells you that it will lead to stability in the region.

Either they are logically the same, or they are different.

What's to stop a monopoly? Lets say I'm Microsoft and I decide to buy out every small company that attempts to compete with me or undercut their prices until they can't compete? How can this be prevented without government intervention?

[Gunny Highway]

[ QUOTE ]
What's to stop a monopoly? Lets say I'm Microsoft and I decide to buy out every small company that attempts to compete with me or undercut their prices until they can't compete? How can this be prevented without government intervention?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're assuming Microsoft could have gotten as big as it is to begin with.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I believe that in a just world people ought to not be punished because they were not born a genius.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good. I'm for not punishing anyone that hasn't initiated an attack against someone else.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that a genius and a moron ought to be treated the same. Obviously, we should afford a genius with books and other resources that they need in order to realize their potential, but that isn't the same as rewarding them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, who's this "we" that should be furnishing all this stuff to the genius? Is this the same "we" that gets to decide who is a genius and who is a moron? Where is the money for this stuff coming from?

[ QUOTE ]
In the same way, I don't think that people who have mental disabilities ought to live on the edge of extreme poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think *anyone* should be *forced* to live in such conditions. Has anyone advocated ghettoization of these people (in this thread)?

[ QUOTE ]
Or, at least they shouldn't have to worry about losing their homes, or wondering where their next meal will come from. Ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, go ahead and pay for all that stuff. Just do it with your money, not mine.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that everyone should be equal. I'm saying that people shouldn't be rewarded or punished for things they don't have control over.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, sounds good. I don't have any control over what other people do or the circumstances under which they were born, so I shouldn't be punished by having to pay for any of this stuff, right?


[ QUOTE ]
So, what you are saying then, is that since life isn't fair, therefore we shouldn't try to make it fair. Right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't speak for the guy you're responding to, but I think people should try to help people out. They just shouldn't force other people to help out the people they want to help.

[mrmazoo]

And there is the second major difference between the Left and the Right.

The Left believe that human nature is basically cooperative.

The Right believe that human nature is basically competitive.

I am neither Left nor Right. I believe that human will be cooperative in an environment that rewards cooperation, and competitive in an environment that rewards competition.

[mrmazoo]

I think the burden is on you to prove that Microsoft couldn't have gotten that big if there was no gov't intervention.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How long would it take for monopolies to arise in every industry?

[/ QUOTE ]

Never. Monopolies only come about because of government intervention.



[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon me if your saying it doesn't convince me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you produce a counterexample?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
What's to stop a monopoly? Lets say I'm Microsoft and I decide to buy out every small company that attempts to compete with me or undercut their prices until they can't compete? How can this be prevented without government intervention?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with that? You think they have a limitless supply of money to buy out competitors? Undercutting prices sounds like a good deal for me, the consumer.

Wiping out competitors is NOT the same as wiping out competition.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
If voting is tyranny, I think it can only be described as just that we let minorities play tyrant and join in the fun of oppressing you, too.

It's only fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, if you're letting one mob make the rules, you might as well let other mobs in on the action. However, please don't insult everyone by calling this arrangement "just".

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
And there is the second major difference between the Left and the Right.

The Left believe that human nature is basically cooperative.

The Right believe that human nature is basically competitive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Human nature is basically BOTH cooperative and competetitive.

I'll just add one observation: if "the Left" really believed what you above claim "the Left" believes, they wouldn't push so hard for coercive laws designed to enforce cooperative behavior: since, according to their beliefs it wouldn't be necessary because human nature is cooperative anyway.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
However, please don't insult everyone by calling this arrangement "just".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing most people don't feel particularly insulted by this arrangement -- most people, I think, take a look at place like Somalia and appreciate their lot in life, as horribly oppressive and unjust living under the tyrannical state may be.

At the very least, I appreciate when those dictatorial state-funded police and defense forces come protect me when the pirates try to firebomb and board my cruise ship. Some people may not appreciate such things - to each his own, I guess.

[mrmazoo]

Right, and I don't want to pay for missiles and bombs that kill Iraqi civilians. Also, I don't want to pay for guns to give to police in towns where I don't live.

Also, I don't want to pay the salaries of the people in congress, or the President, or anyone in government for that matter. They don't represent me and never will.

I agree that people shouldn't be FORCED to help people that they don't want to help.

I'm saying that we would all be better off if we spent more time helping each other and less time helping ourselves. I'm not saying we ought to be FORCED to help others more. I realize this is a hard concept to grasp in a world where the concept of Left and Right is equivalent to the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

I personally, would rather live in a world where nobody was able to make enough money to allow their descendents to live work-free for five generations, if it meant that I could walk down any street at 3am and feel safe.

I don't know how to make this come about, but I know that as long as there are people in my neighborhood who work three jobs and still can't make enough money to get themselves and their families by, I will have to lock my doors at all times and spend money on alarm systems and guns in order to keep my family safe from people.

And please don't start telling me how lazy the poor are.

[mrmazoo]

Can you give me an example of a modern society that didn't regulate its economy?

[mrmazoo]

I see what you are saying.

My point is that after awhile, the winner is not whoever comes up with the best widget or best idea, but whoever has amassed the most capital. Or, more insidiously, the winner is whoever launches the most effective propaganda campaign.

[mrmazoo]

You are equating the Left with the US Democratic Party. I don't.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you give me an example of a modern society that didn't regulate its economy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't you heard about this stateless utopia? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4424264.stm)

Unfortunately, some statist tyrants are trying to form a 'government' (read = dictatorship) to put an end to the legitimate business interests of the pirates, who routinely receive upwards of $500k per ship they capture. No one has the legitimate right to tell these buccaneers what to do - the statists are merely trying to supplant the pirate's legitimate business with their own brand of state-run fascist piracy, i.e. TAAAXXEEESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How unjust. Blackbeard must be rolling over in his grave.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, and I don't want to pay for missiles and bombs that kill Iraqi civilians. Also, I don't want to pay for guns to give to police in towns where I don't live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I don't want to pay the salaries of the people in congress, or the President, or anyone in government for that matter. They don't represent me and never will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that people shouldn't be FORCED to help people that they don't want to help.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that we would all be better off if we spent more time helping each other and less time helping ourselves. I'm not saying we ought to be FORCED to help others more. I realize this is a hard concept to grasp in a world where the concept of Left and Right is equivalent to the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I grasp it just fine. I am not convinced that you really believe this, though, given the way you framed your previous posts. When you imply that me not helping someone else is the same as punishing them, you're already halfway to socialism. I have finite resources, so I can't sufficiently help everyone that needs help. Someone else prioritizing and directing the use of my resources isn't the answer.

[ QUOTE ]
I personally, would rather live in a world where nobody was able to make enough money to allow their descendents to live work-free for five generations, if it meant that I could walk down any street at 3am and feel safe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. I'd also like it if gasoline cost $0.25/gallon, and if everyone had a pony. That doesn't mean that there is injustice if those conditions aren't met.

[Gunny Highway]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally, would rather live in a world where nobody was able to make enough money to allow their descendents to live work-free for five generations, if it meant that I could walk down any street at 3am and feel safe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good news! If you manage to do the first thing, then you get to have the second thing too.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how to make this come about, but I know that as long as there are people in my neighborhood who work three jobs and still can't make enough money to get themselves and their families by, I will have to lock my doors at all times and spend money on alarm systems and guns in order to keep my family safe from people.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hate to break it to you, but eliminating poverty won't eliminate crime. I suggest you move to a different neighborhood.

[Gunny Highway]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you give me an example of a modern society that didn't regulate its economy?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I also can't give you of a modern society in which murder doesn't occur. That doesn't make either one right.

[Gunny Highway]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the burden is on you to prove that Microsoft couldn't have gotten that big if there was no gov't intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe it is, but o.k. You really believe Microsoft could have gotten that big w.o intellectual property laws?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you give me an example of a modern society that didn't regulate its economy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't you heard about this stateless utopia? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4424264.stm)

Unfortunately, some statist tyrants are trying to form a 'government' (read = dictatorship) to put an end to the legitimate business interests of the pirates, who routinely receive upwards of $500k per ship they capture. No one has the legitimate right to tell these buccaneers what to do - the statists are merely trying to supplant the pirate's legitimate business with their own brand of state-run fascist piracy, i.e. TAAAXXEEESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How unjust. Blackbeard must be rolling over in his grave.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Somalia strawman has been repeatedly debunked.

The main problem with the "Somalia shows that anarchy is bad" argument is that it ignores the huge elephant in the room - the fact that the government that was there before was unable to maintain order to begin with.

There are failed states all over the place - but you don't see any anarchists claiming that their existence shows that statism itself is inherently doomed to collapse.

Comparisons between Somalia's anarchy and US representitive democracy as a stand-in for comparisons between anarchy and representative democracy are inherently flawed, and anyone who thinks about it for five seconds can see why.

Comparisons between Somalia and its neighbors, comparisons where the starting conditions are much more similar, are more interesting (though not completely unflawed). Even the world bank has had to admit that Somalia has made huge leaps forward compared to other similar nations since the government disappeared. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than it was? Undoubtedly. Are there criminals and abusers? Of course.

You show your ignorance when you mockingly call somalia a Utopia. No anarchist has ever claimed that anarcho-capitalism is utopian.

In case you didn't know, there are (and have been) pirates in other parts of the world, areas with actual, functioning governments. Yet the pirates persist. Wow. You mean that government doesn't magically make pirates instantly disappear?

[mrmazoo]

Do you consider yourself an anarcho-capitalist, pvn?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you consider yourself an anarcho-capitalist, pvn?

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't read this forum much, do ya?

[mrmazoo]

Sorry everyone. I can't keep up with this thread!

I'll grant that everyone has made excellent points and I definitely have a lot to think about.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much and certainly don't have all (or even some) of the answers. I just wanted to spark some interesting discussion, and I think in that I succeeded.

I will keep reading everyone's posts but I can't keep up the responses. Not if I want to continue to be employed. :-)

For the record. I consider myself an anarchist. I believe in the potential of the free human spirit. I may not know what that would lead to, or even what form it would take, but I will never trust "leaders" to decide what is best for me or anyone else.

This discussion has made me realize that I am not as anti-capitalist as I thought I was. Thank you.

However, I am still not convinced of the equivelance of economic freedom and social justice (although my confidence that they are distinct has been somewhat shaken).

What about the difference between economic progress and social progress? Any? Is this the same question?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The Somalia strawman has been repeatedly debunked.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, oh? You keep telling yourself that.

[ QUOTE ]
The main problem with the "Somalia shows that anarchy is bad" argument is that it ignores the huge elephant in the room - the fact that the government that was there before was unable to maintain order to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of strawman arguments...

[ QUOTE ]
There are failed states all over the place - but you don't see any anarchists claiming that their existence shows that statism itself is inherently doomed to collapse.

[/ QUOTE ]

No -- but certainly, anarachists claim that state failures prove the inherent illegitimacy of the state.

[ QUOTE ]
Comparisons between Somalia's anarchy and US representitive democracy as a stand-in for comparisons between anarchy and representative democracy are inherently flawed, and anyone who thinks about it for five seconds can see why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's try comparisons between Somalia and...anywhere. Let's try anywhere. I would gladly live anywhere -- North Korea, Iran, the North Pole -- you name it...before I would willingly choose to live in Somalia.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it better than it was? Undoubtedly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence? You cite the World Bank -- I'm genuinely curious.

[ QUOTE ]
You show your ignorance when you mockingly call somalia a Utopia. No anarchist has ever claimed that anarcho-capitalism is utopian.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, let me concede that you're right; I call Somalia a utopia to mock anarchists who often place it on a pedastal, as if it might be something to aspire to -- so much so that anarachists (as you have done numerous times) try vainly (and so painfully, for the objective reader) to defend Somalia, and the current situation there.

Will the anarchist freely admit that anarchy has produced (at the very least, furthered) in Somalia exactly what most predict anarachy will produce (or again, at the very least, exacerbate and aggravate) - that is: chaos, social unrest, ubiquitous violence, warlordism, and general dissary?

If you demand 'statists' constantly defend and legitimize the state (a perfectly fair demand), certainly anarachists ought to defend the place they so often rely upon as a paradigm -- that place being Somalia, of course.

If you have absolutely no interest in defending Somalia, then I'm compelled to agree with arguments that rely on labeling anarchy as un-workable and impractical, as anarchists can point to little in the way of empirical evidence that would demonstrate the feasibility of anarchy.

Give the oppressive statists credit for consistency and honesty -- they certainly act on their beliefs. I don't know any anarchists who have willingly left their comfortable lives in 'oppressive' states to live in Somalia. Hypocrisy rears its ugly head, I guess.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Without economic freedom, you do not have social justice.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The main problem with the "Somalia shows that anarchy is bad" argument is that it ignores the huge elephant in the room - the fact that the government that was there before was unable to maintain order to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of strawman arguments...

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the strawman? If you're going to claim that anarchy results in chaos, shouldn't you be able to come up with an example other than one which *began* with chaos, a chaos that developed in spite of the existence of a state? Anarchy did not produce the chaos in Somalia - it was there before anarchy was!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are failed states all over the place - but you don't see any anarchists claiming that their existence shows that statism itself is inherently doomed to collapse.

[/ QUOTE ]

No -- but certainly, anarachists claim that state failures prove the inherent illegitimacy of the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does failure prove illegitimacy? I don't claim that, and I don't know of any reputable anarchists that do. I can think of several successful murderers, and I don't see anyone claiming that they were legitimate because of their success.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it better than it was? Undoubtedly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence? You cite the World Bank -- I'm genuinely curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/280-nenova-harford.pdf

Quoting from that document:

"Somalia has lacked a recognized government since 1991 - an unusually long time. In extremely difficult conditions the private sector has demonstrated its much-vaunted capability to make do. To cope with the absence of the rule of law, private enterprises have been using foreign jurisdictions or institutions to help with some tasks, operating within networks of trust to strengthen property rights, and simplifying transactions until they require neither. Somalia's private sector experience suggests that it may be easier than is commonly thought for basic systems of finance and some infrastructure services to function where government is extremely weak or absent."

[ QUOTE ]
First, let me concede that you're right; I call Somalia a utopia to mock anarchists who often place it on a pedastal, as if it might be something to aspire to -- so much so that anarachists (as you have done numerous times) try vainly (and so painfully, for the objective reader) to defend Somalia, and the current situation there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't put somalia on a pedestal. It's a hellhole. But, like you point out, there are plenty of statist hellholes, too. Like I said, AC is definitely not utopian. I don't really seek to *defend* Somalia so much as to counter the misinformation about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Will the anarchist freely admit that anarchy has produced (at the very least, furthered) in Somalia exactly what most predict anarachy will produce (or again, at the very least, exacerbate and aggravate) - that is: chaos, social unrest, ubiquitous violence, warlordism, and general dissary?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Chaos, unrest, violence, and disarray do exist there, but anarchy did not produce any of them. The previous government did. Anarchy doesn't further these, either. Warlording is distinctly less profitable without state intervention creating distorted markets (where warlords operate).

[ QUOTE ]
If you demand 'statists' constantly defend and legitimize the state (a perfectly fair demand), certainly anarachists ought to defend the place they so often rely upon as a paradigm -- that place being Somalia, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except I've seen nobody rely upon Somalia as a paradigm. You're the one that brought it up, not me.

[ QUOTE ]
If you have absolutely no interest in defending Somalia, then I'm compelled to agree with arguments that rely on labeling anarchy as un-workable and impractical, as anarchists can point to little in the way of empirical evidence that would demonstrate the feasibility of anarchy.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Somalia proves that anarchy is unworkable and impractical, than it surely proves even more soundly that statism is also unworkable and impractical, since statism failed there and anarchy has persisted for quite a while.

[ QUOTE ]
Give the oppressive statists credit for consistency and honesty -- they certainly act on their beliefs. I don't know any anarchists who have willingly left their comfortable lives in 'oppressive' states to live in Somalia. Hypocrisy rears its ugly head, I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the old "if you don't like it here, move" argument. I guess anyone that disagrees with the status quo should just pack up and leave rather than try to change anything. Nevermind my property rights, somebody else's "right" to tell me what to do is more important.

I'll re-post something I posted a while back when the somalia arguement came up:

"Anachro-capitalism is not a magic bullet that produces equally-ideal results in every situation. The fact is that anarchy has clearly resulted in a better situation in somalia than they had before under a government. That doesn't mean that one should expect that Somali anarchy will produce a better result than American government - there are plenty of other cultural factors at work as well, and we here have an infrastructure that hasn't been ravaged by civil war (NB another internal conflict in spite of the presence of government), and our infrastructure is much more advanced due to our more advanced economy. That said, Somalia is catching up faster than the other countries with similar conditions in Africa, due to not being weighed down by government (and government is in general VERY bureaucratic in Africa, so the difference is extreme). The point is not that America does better despite government, but how much better America could be doing without it."

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The main problem with the "Somalia shows that anarchy is bad" argument is that it ignores the huge elephant in the room - the fact that the government that was there before was unable to maintain order to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of strawman arguments...


[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying that the government WAS able to keep control of Somalia before the anarchic period? I don’t see how pvn’s claim is a strawman argument seeing how it is based on fact.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are failed states all over the place - but you don't see any anarchists claiming that their existence shows that statism itself is inherently doomed to collapse.

[/ QUOTE ]
No -- but certainly, anarachists claim that state failures prove the inherent illegitimacy of the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarchists (capitalist ones at least) believe in natural law… that humans should be able to be free to do as they wish, so long as it does not do harm to others. Every state in history has imposed on these freedoms. That is the anarchist claim to the illegitimacy of the state.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Comparisons between Somalia's anarchy and US representitive democracy as a stand-in for comparisons between anarchy and representative democracy are inherently flawed, and anyone who thinks about it for five seconds can see why.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's try comparisons between Somalia and...anywhere. Let's try anywhere. I would gladly live anywhere -- North Korea, Iran, the North Pole -- you name it...before I would willingly choose to live in Somalia.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is your opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it better than it was? Undoubtedly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Evidence? You cite the World Bank -- I'm genuinely curious.

[/ QUOTE ]


Can you prove this?

"Will the anarchist freely admit that anarchy has produced (at the very least, furthered) in Somalia exactly what most predict anarachy will produce (or again, at the very least, exacerbate and aggravate) - that is: chaos, social unrest, ubiquitous violence, warlordism, and general dissary?"


[ QUOTE ]
If you have absolutely no interest in defending Somalia, then I'm compelled to agree with arguments that rely on labeling anarchy as un-workable and impractical, as anarchists can point to little in the way of empirical evidence that would demonstrate the feasibility of anarchy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Celtic Ireland is one example. Just because there is limited evidence does not mean it isn’t feasible. Somalia has limited infrastructure (which has nothing to do with the lack of government), I think that is an important point you are missing.


[ QUOTE ]
Give the oppressive statists credit for consistency and honesty -- they certainly act on their beliefs. I don't know any anarchists who have willingly left their comfortable lives in 'oppressive' states to live in Somalia. Hypocrisy rears its ugly head, I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can’t I try to change things here? Nothing is worse than the “if you don’t like it then move” argument.

[mrmazoo]

Nope. I just started reading it a few weeks ago.

I appreciate the sarcasm.

[adios]

Thanks, given your definitions and comment about social progress let me think about it /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The main problem with the "Somalia shows that anarchy is bad" argument is that it ignores the huge elephant in the room - the fact that the government that was there before was unable to maintain order to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of strawman arguments...

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the strawman? If you're going to claim that anarchy results in chaos, shouldn't you be able to come up with an example other than one which *began* with chaos, a chaos that developed in spite of the existence of a state? Anarchy did not produce the chaos in Somalia - it was there before anarchy was!

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a straw man because no one is defending the former (and now displaced for more than a decade) Somali government -- and yet, when anarchists are called upon to defend the current, wretched condition in Somalia, they wash their hands and say "all the former government's fault" - thereby skirting the real issue, and constructing a veritable straw man in the form of the former Somali government. Perhaps it would have been more accurate had I said anarchists are scape-goating, or trying to present a red herring.

At some point, anarchists ought to admit that there's nothing redeeming about the current situation in Somalia -- a situation that anarchy has done little to resolve (and I would argue, has done much to intensify).

[ QUOTE ]
How does failure prove illegitimacy? I don't claim that, and I don't know of any reputable anarchists that do. I can think of several successful murderers, and I don't see anyone claiming that they were legitimate because of their success.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there not a subtle (if not overt) sense among libertarians, and others (perhaps I haven't heard you specifically say this, but I sincerely doubt you disagree -- and I suspect, should I search your previous posts, I could find posts where you express a similar sentiment): that in political systems where government intervention into the private sector was exceedingly high, or where the private sector was non-existent (let's say, for instance, in communists states) -- that the failure of these communist states demonstrate why state intervention into the private sector leads to the inevitable failure of states?

[ QUOTE ]

http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/280-nenova-harford.pdf

Quoting from that document:

"Somalia has lacked a recognized government since 1991 - an unusually long time. In extremely difficult conditions the private sector has demonstrated its much-vaunted capability to make do. To cope with the absence of the rule of law, private enterprises have been using foreign jurisdictions or institutions to help with some tasks, operating within networks of trust to strengthen property rights, and simplifying transactions until they require neither. Somalia's private sector experience suggests that it may be easier than is commonly thought for basic systems of finance and some infrastructure services to function where government is extremely weak or absent."

[/ QUOTE ]

Having read the document in a cursory manner, and in light of your quote -- nothing in your quote, nor in the link provides evidence (or even claims) that anarchy has produced much of anything in terms of 'success' except in narrow areas (and even those claims come with caveats). What I did read, however, was the following:

1) What is successful in Somalia relies heavily on international intervention -- and on protections provided by the international community (read = other states) -- in fact, many of the Somali 'success stories' noted in the article came with the reminder that these successes were heavily dependent on the protections provided for by other states. For instance, the inflation which destroyed local currencies on two separate occasions was relieved only by relying on American currency; many Somali corporations register internationally, so as to access legal protections; international money transfers to/from Somalia are overseen by other states; airplanes are security-checked in other countries, etc.

2) Some infrastructure and finance systems can operate in a manner that does unexpectedly well when compared with dire predictions and forecasts.

Hardly a ringing endorsement. It might sound positive, if we forget that 'better than expected' merely means that expectations were for compete disarray, chaos and failure.

3) Somalia does well in some limited areas of narrow scope when compared with other despotic, autocratic African regimes in the area.

Or put differently, horse [censored] smells better than dog [censored] in some regards. Again, hardly a strong endorsement.

4) What stability that exists in Somalia is also highly dependent on de facto local governments, in the form of powerful warlords or other clans. So Somalia has replaced the far-reaching potential of state authority with the somewhat more limited but equally oppressive power of local clans. Color me un-persuaded.

Nowhere in the article you posted do the authors claim that Somalia is in a better place now than it was when its government existed, except in a few limited areas.

[ QUOTE ]
No. Chaos, unrest, violence, and disarray do exist there, but anarchy did not produce any of them. The previous government did. Anarchy doesn't further these, either. Warlording is distinctly less profitable without state intervention creating distorted markets (where warlords operate).

[/ QUOTE ]

The authors of the article you linked to seem to believe that a benevolent government would do much to resolve some of the long-standing problems Somalia suffers from -- especially in transportation and education.

So bad government (as existed in Somalia pre-1991) creates terrible problems, and anarchy (which has now existed in Somalia for almost 15 years) does very little to solve them (and nowhere in the article does it claim anarchy hasn't contributed to these problem, which is my contention) -- and lastly, benevolent government could do much to improve current conditions.

Sounds about right to me.

And on a side note, I think this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4017147.stm) details why (if it wasn't obvious already) anarchy has done much to contribute to the suffering of the Somalis.

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, the old "if you don't like it here, move" argument. I guess anyone that disagrees with the status quo should just pack up and leave rather than try to change anything. Nevermind my property rights, somebody else's "right" to tell me what to do is more important.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the old "if you don't like it here, move" argument -- it's the old "your continued presence here constitutes a tacit consent for state authority" argument.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
So you are saying that the government WAS able to keep control of Somalia before the anarchic period? I don’t see how pvn’s claim is a strawman argument seeing how it is based on fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

See my reply to pvn above.

[ QUOTE ]
Why can’t I try to change things here? Nothing is worse than the “if you don’t like it then move” argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

See my reply to pvn above.

[ QUOTE ]
...which more or less furthers my belief that this forum, and every thread on it, eventually transforms itself into the same, tired, banal discussion about the legitimacy of the state and taxation -- and why I find it hard to post in/read this forum anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is pretty much why I haven't been in the forum for a while, as well. How do you discuss politics with people that think there ought not to be government or next to no government? Basically all politics involves taxes to some extent, so it's worthless to sit here and debate poltics with someone who thinks taxes are Big Brother's gun to the head.

The fundamental disagreement between the left and the right is that the right feels that all money belongs to the people, and that the government must confiscate just enough of it to do what is layed out in the constitution. The left believes that all money belongs to the government, and it is up to the government to allow the people to keep however much money it decides is socially responsible, and that the it is governments decision as to what you should spend money on (ie tax credits/targeted taxes).

[TomCollins]

Remind me again who is in power. And remind me what has happened to spending.

The difference between the left and the right is the left wants to pay for things now, and the right wants to pay for things later. They both love to spend as much as the next.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...which more or less furthers my belief that this forum, and every thread on it, eventually transforms itself into the same, tired, banal discussion about the legitimacy of the state and taxation -- and why I find it hard to post in/read this forum anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is pretty much why I haven't been in the forum for a while, as well. How do you discuss politics with people that think there ought not to be government or next to no government? Basically all politics involves taxes to some extent, so it's worthless to sit here and debate poltics with someone who thinks taxes are Big Brother's gun to the head.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and I've had this or a similar discussion no less than 5 times with pvn, which means I'm either sadistic, irrational, or most likely, both.

I once heard the Politics Forum described in OOT as "the place where the same 20 people have a never-ending flame war about the same 10 things" -- I think it's now been reduced from 10 things to this one (maybe 2 if we count Iraq), and it's become greatly tiresome for me.

I realize I'm exaggerating a bit, but I would venture to guess somewhere between 25-35% of all threads eventually morph into some discussion about the legitimacy of the state and taxation. It's certainly not pvn's fault, as there seems to be a roster of 2+2ers who stop by to beat the "THE GOVERNMENT IS A LYING, THEIVING ORGANIZATION FOR EVEN CONSIDERING TAXING ME!!!! DON'T THEY REALIZE THEY'RE COMMON [censored] CRIMINALS!!!! AIN'T NO ONE GOT THE RIGHT TO [censored] WITH ME!!!!" drum -- which is all well and good. But I think it's rather tiresome, and I don't remember it necessarily always being like this -- but perhaps I'm mistaken on that count. If I were to guess, it may have something to do with the overwhelming male majority here, who probably find taxes to be at least somewhat emasculating...but I'll put aside my Freudian musings for the moment and just say that the overwhelming consternation over the legitimacy of taxes (in this forum in particular) is at least somewhat unique and is a curious idiosyncrasy.

And because I frequently partake in the discussion, and because the debate is seemingly never-ending, some people must be getting enjoyment out of it, so I'm not sure it's fair for me to criticize it. And I never liked posts that criticized the inherent nature of this forum, as I think it's merely a reflection of what people are interested in conversing about. But I just don't find the Politics Forum to be as entertaining as it once was, and I think this endless discussion is a big reason why.

[ QUOTE ]
Remind me again who is in power. And remind me what has happened to spending.


[/ QUOTE ]

George W Bush and the GOP are in power and through the Iraq War and their inability to control spending coupled with their frequent refusal to take a stand for what their conservative constituents believe in (ownership society etc) they have blown the chance of a lifetime.

But allow me to clarify further. By right I meant conservatives and by left I meant liberals.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remind me again who is in power. And remind me what has happened to spending.


[/ QUOTE ]

George W Bush and the GOP are in power and through the Iraq War and their inability to control spending coupled with their frequent refusal to take a stand for what their conservative constituents believe in (ownership society etc) they have blown the chance of a lifetime.

But allow me to clarify further. By right I meant conservatives and by left I meant liberals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that Bush is a Liberal? And Congress? Or are you saying that Iraq is the only increase in spending. Check non-defense discrestionary spending. I'll give you a hint, its up.

[ QUOTE ]
and their inability to control spending

[/ QUOTE ]

reading comprehension

On a side note, it has certainly put the Democrats in a pickle. What I mean is, with education for instance, only the true socialists have come out calling for more education spending (to date Bush has spent more on education than any President in history with no overall improvement).

[TomCollins]

Why are they unable? Is it because they are "liberals"? That seems to be your only explination.

There are several reasons, one being that there are too many moderate Republicans, including Bush himself, who has embraced Big Government. Congress, like I said, has largely refused to stand up for their conservative constituents and bowed to the White House's will.

Personally I think that many GOP Congressmen have this notion that since they control the legislature and the White House they need to solve all of the nations problems and prove they belong there, since they have no excuses this time, but this inevitably leads to more government spending and surprise surprise, problems left unsolved.

Also, many large spending increases were set into motion during 4-5 years ago when the Congress was turning out a surplus and had little incentive to control the budget.

And btw, here in Pennsylvania conservative doesn't automatically mean Republican. Just look at the Toomey/Specter battle (for a repeat, watch Swann/Scranton next year) to see what I mean.

Enough thread hijacking for now.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a straw man because no one is defending the former (and now displaced for more than a decade) Somali government -- and yet, when anarchists are called upon to defend the current, wretched condition in Somalia, they wash their hands and say "all the former government's fault" - thereby skirting the real issue, and constructing a veritable straw man in the form of the former Somali government. Perhaps it would have been more accurate had I said anarchists are scape-goating, or trying to present a red herring.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you contend that if anachro-capitalism can't make an overnight success, it's a failure? The conditions set up by the previous regime have no effect on ability of the current regime to succeed? Why, then, did they southern US take so long to rebound after the civil war? Once the US was in charge, everything should have been rebuilt overnight, right?

[ QUOTE ]
Is there not a subtle (if not overt) sense among libertarians, and others (perhaps I haven't heard you specifically say this, but I sincerely doubt you disagree -- and I suspect, should I search your previous posts, I could find posts where you express a similar sentiment): that in political systems where government intervention into the private sector was exceedingly high, or where the private sector was non-existent (let's say, for instance, in communists states) -- that the failure of these communist states demonstrate why state intervention into the private sector leads to the inevitable failure of states?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that states, even communist ones, are inherently doomed to failure, at least not in that sense. Some states will fail, and competition with more efficient states can accellerate this process. Of course, over a long enough period, any given state will fail (many will be replaced by other states, though). But again, the failure of any one doesn't *prove* that all others will fail.

[ QUOTE ]
The authors of the article you linked to seem to believe that a benevolent government would do much to resolve some of the long-standing problems Somalia suffers from -- especially in transportation and education.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well of course they would - they're bureaucrats, after all. The point wasn't to highlight their recommendations, but their observations. The reality of Somalia, while clearly abysmal, is still quite different from the way it is often portrayed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, the old "if you don't like it here, move" argument. I guess anyone that disagrees with the status quo should just pack up and leave rather than try to change anything. Nevermind my property rights, somebody else's "right" to tell me what to do is more important.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the old "if you don't like it here, move" argument -- it's the old "your continued presence here constitutes a tacit consent for state authority" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except it doesn't. Proximity doesn't give thugs legitimacy. Are those that live in neighborhoods where gangs operate consenting to gang activity?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Which do you think is more important, economic freedom or social justice, and why?

It is my belief that this question gets to the heart of the fundamental disagreement between the Right and the Left. Do you agree? If not, what do you think is the fundamental disagreement?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Social justice" is usually a codeword for communism anyway. If by "social justice" you just mean actual fairness and equality of opportunity throughout society, I would argue that it is inseparable from economic freedom anyway. Notice that most of the incidents of state-condoned injustices take the form of economic violations anyway.

natedogg

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
"Social justice" is usually a codeword for communism anyway. If by "social justice" you just mean actual fairness and equality of opportunity throughout society, I would argue that it is inseparable from economic freedom anyway. Notice that most of the incidents of state-condoned injustices take the form of economic violations anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. So when, for example, the state forbids me from exercising my religious practices, this is an "economic violation", right?

...Soon, you will reach such an advanced state of mind that you will be conversing only in numbers, preceded by the dollar sign.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are they unable? Is it because they are "liberals"? That seems to be your only explination.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that they are, seeing as they show no signs of reducing government's involvement in people's everyday lives -- something that is representative of socialist or (modern) liberal ideology.

The way I see it, true conservatism is about God being in charge, men answering to God, women answering to their husbands who place a high value on the family as the fundamental building block of society, and families interacting with each other in ways which they deem mutually beneficial with only minimal involvement from a (secular) central authority.

In modern America I can't even SAY my views publicly without getting chastised. That's how far the country is from true conservatism (unfortunately), even when republicans are in power.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The way I see it, true conservatism is about God being in charge, men answering to God, women answering to their husbands who place a high value on the family as the fundamental building block of society, and families interacting with each other in ways which they deem mutually beneficial with only minimal involvement from a (secular) central authority.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you could explain why you think this is "true conservatism"?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The way I see it, true conservatism is about God being in charge, men answering to God, women answering to their husbands who place a high value on the family as the fundamental building block of society, and families interacting with each other in ways which they deem mutually beneficial with only minimal involvement from a (secular) central authority.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you could explain why you think this is "true conservatism"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is Russell Kirk's list of what he thinks conservativism is defined as.

Ten Conservative Principles (1993)

1. First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
2. Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
3. Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
4. Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
5. Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
6. Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
7. Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
8. Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
9. Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
10. Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

For a further explanation, here is a link:

10 Conservative Principles (http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html)

[BCPVP]

Awesome stuff, vulture. I liked what I read of The Conservative Mind last year (college library book and I had to leave college, so I've yet to finish it).

The only issue I take with the other guy's statement was that women should answer to their husbands. I should have said it more clearly before, but this is what I wanted elaboration on. I pretty much agree with everything else he said.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Social justice" is usually a codeword for communism anyway. If by "social justice" you just mean actual fairness and equality of opportunity throughout society, I would argue that it is inseparable from economic freedom anyway. Notice that most of the incidents of state-condoned injustices take the form of economic violations anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. So when, for example, the state forbids me from exercising my religious practices, this is an "economic violation", right?

...Soon, you will reach such an advanced state of mind that you will be conversing only in numbers, preceded by the dollar sign.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, he said "most". However, you could argue that religious persecution is an economic violation since it's a violation of property rights (assuming you're practicing on private property, where the owner approves).

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I see. So when, for example, the state forbids me from exercising my religious practices, this is an "economic violation", right

Relax. He said *most*, not *all*.

Besides, you picked an obvious violation of freedom by government. the economic ones are more insidious. The various government entities that impinge on you economically do so incrementally. A 2% increase in one tax here, a 3% increase in certain fees there, etc. It's easy to show impingement on freedom when it's as obvious as stifling religious expression or speech. it's harder when your economic freedom is siphoned off a lttle at a time, all by "good programs" that "benefit society."

So yeah, economic freedom isn't the only aspect of social justice, but it sure is an integral part. Without the freedom to keep your money, there are precious few ways to utilize all those other freedoms.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You picked an obvious violation of freedom by government [and not an economic one].

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't tell me.

Tell it to the other guy (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4052232) . He seems to disagre with you:

[ QUOTE ]
Religious persecution is an economic violation since it's a violation of property rights - assuming you're practicing on private property, where the owner approves.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fantastic. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Darryl_P]

Here is an article (http://yconservatives.com/columns/carmack-23.html) which is along the same lines as what I'm saying.

Also, there is a passage from the Bible, Ephesians 22-23, which reads:

"Wives, submit to your own husband as to the lord, For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church."

And from the male psychology perspective I offer this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0785268839/102-0931156-8386505?v=glance&n=283155&%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVP DKIKX0DER&no=283155&st=books) , which has received praise from religious right groups for its illuminating perspective on a man's rightful role in the family and society.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You picked an obvious violation of freedom by government [and not an economic one].

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't tell me.

Tell it to the other guy (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4052232) . He seems to disagre with you:

[ QUOTE ]
Religious persecution is an economic violation since it's a violation of property rights - assuming you're practicing on private property, where the owner approves.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fantastic. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

When government restricts your use of your own land, the value of that land decreases. The market value of that land will also decrease, since the pool of buyers for that land will decrease by the number of people who would have seeked to use the property for the restricted use.

You buy some waterfront property with the intention of building a house. After you buy, but before construction starts, the government puts a building restriction on the property because a rare bird might have been spotted somewhere in the area. Your land is now basically worthless.

What's the difference between building a house and practicing your religion?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
What's the difference between building a house and practicing your religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

None whatsoever. I keep tellin' 'em.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Social justice" is usually a codeword for communism anyway. If by "social justice" you just mean actual fairness and equality of opportunity throughout society, I would argue that it is inseparable from economic freedom anyway. Notice that most of the incidents of state-condoned injustices take the form of economic violations anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]



I see. So when, for example, the state forbids me from exercising my religious practices, this is an "economic violation", right?


[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus, natedogg used the words "usually" and "most", hence your example and riposte are inappropriate and misdirected.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Social justice" is usually a codeword for communism anyway. If by "social justice" you just mean actual fairness and equality of opportunity throughout society, I would argue that it is inseparable from economic freedom anyway. Notice that most of the incidents of state-condoned injustices take the form of economic violations anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. So when, for example, the state forbids me from exercising my religious practices, this is an "economic violation", right?

...Soon, you will reach such an advanced state of mind that you will be conversing only in numbers, preceded by the dollar sign.

[/ QUOTE ]


Others have sufficiently reminded you of your poor reading comprehension, which you constnatly display on this forum. I said "most", not all.

But regardless, it is true that most of the state-enforced "injustices" take the form of economic coercion.

Making blacks ride in the back of the bus, etc. all forms of segregation are enforced via economic controls.

Have you ever heard of a POLL TAX? You leftists are usually obsessed with that one. The state was able to maintain apartheid by ... GASP ... creating economic violations that served to maintain an unjust tyranny.
What could be more clear than that? Social injustice usually takes the form of or is maintained through economic injustice. It's not that hard to understand.

Licensure and "fair wage" laws and the like are no different. These are economic freedoms that are indistinguishible from my social freedoms when put into practice. What could be more of a social freedom than my choice of how I want to make a living?

I can't wait to see how your poor reading comprehension ends up interpreting this one.

natedogg

[BadBoyBenny]

I haven't read the other replies yet, but "social justice" is both a loaded term and relative to interpretation.

Do you think that an even wealth distribution is a necessary condition for acheiving social justice?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Others have sufficiently reminded you of your poor reading comprehension, which you constnatly display on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not the reading here that is the problem, it's rather the writing. More accurately, the uncritical semi-digestion of ideas such as Hayek's (who passes as a philosopher in some dorms, Gawd help us!), Milton Friedman's or (yep, stil with us) Ayn Rand's.

The core objective when contesting power is ...power, of course. Which means, first and foremost, political power. A significant number of folks, in studying Economics, give a cursory look to the socio-historical aspect and concentrate on the mathematics. Yet they get BAs and PhDs.

Although it seems self-evident and redundant to say it, political power dictates economic power, which, in turn, influences political power. On the level of nations and societies (per PVN, they do not exist, but indulge me!), economic power usually translates quite well into political influence. But political power, which comes from a combination of factors but can summed up as who gets to be in the driver's seat, is where it all comes from.

Lenin did not order the bolsheviks to get rich and multiply. He stormed the Winter Palace! (And then he tried to run the Soviet economy...)

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Others have sufficiently reminded you of your poor reading comprehension, which you constnatly display on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not the reading here that is the problem, it's rather the writing. More accurately, the uncritical semi-digestion of ideas such as Hayek's (who passes as a philosopher in some dorms, Gawd help us!), Milton Friedman's or (yep, stil with us) Ayn Rand's.

The core objective when contesting power is ...power, of course. Which means, first and foremost, political power. A significant number of folks, in studying Economics, give a cursory look to the socio-historical aspect and concentrate on the mathematics. Yet they get BAs and PhDs.

Although it seems self-evident and redundant to say it, political power dictates economic power, which, in turn, influences political power. On the level of nations and societies (per PVN, they do not exist, but indulge me!), economic power usually translates quite well into political influence. But political power, which comes from a combination of factors but can summed up as who gets to be in the driver's seat, is where it all comes from.

Lenin did not order the bolsheviks to get rich and multiply. He stormed the Winter Palace! (And then he tried to run the Soviet economy...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Get some sleep. You're babbling. And your comments sound dangerously close to advocating the tyranny of the majority, which I'm sure you don't really support, being a proper leftist and all. WAIT! That's what the left is all about. From Lenin to Che to Chavez, the tyranny of the majority is justified by the few who claim to be the "will of the people". I forgot. Never mind.

If "the people" want it ,it must be right. What a horrifying political philosophy. Dammit, now *I'm* babbling. I'm going to sleep.

natedogg

[aujoz]

The problem when asking a question about "social justice" and "economic freedom" is that the question pre-supposes that society has a role to play in determing justice when it comes to economics.

ie, it implies that society collectively has a role to play in assigning incomes or value to individual's work. i don't think it does - i believe that it is just for people to be rewarded according (broadly) to their contribution to society. i feel that the best way to do that is through the free market.

hence, economic freedom delivers social justice.

irving kristol wrote about this much more eloquently than i could.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not the reading here that is the problem, it's rather the writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is hilarious, coming from a guy who routinely misquotes and quotes out of context.

[etgryphon]

Eph 5:22-23 is nothing without the contexts of Eph 5:25-33

[ QUOTE ]

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have known VERY few men that follow verse 25-33. I hope to attain that myself. Men beat their chest with verse 22-23 but fail to realize it is being adressed TO THE WIFE.
As a husband, I am to only focus on verse 25-33.

It is easy to take both out of context. I choose to focus on my part. It is a whole lot harder to do than the wife's admonition.

-Gryph

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[You] routinely misquote and quote out of context.

[/ QUOTE ]
Care to point out one example of this practice?

I say you are losing your temper. (And that's in context.)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Your comments sound dangerously close to advocating the tyranny of the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm a supporter of democracy -- an imperfect and undefined political system that remains the best we have. (Did I write "the beast we have"?)

In order to avoid the tyranny of the majority, the rights of the individual must be safe-guarded. This has been shown to be possible and workable through the legacy of the American Revolution. (All efforts by the American Right to the contrary.)

What else you got?

[ QUOTE ]
From Lenin to Che to Chavez, the tyranny of the majority is justified by the few who claim to be the "will of the people".

[/ QUOTE ] You have shown to be ignorant of what "the Left" is. All you have to go on are platitudes --- easily recalled, inanely used, mindlessly discarded. Political debate as junk food.

Here's a wrench in your motor: If Salvador Allende was from "the Left", how come he was democratic to the (bitter) end, refusing to use brute force to prevail or instigate measures against individual rights?

[ QUOTE ]
Get some sleep.

[/ QUOTE ]Speak for yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to sleep.

[/ QUOTE ]There you go. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[You] routinely misquote and quote out of context.

[/ QUOTE ]
Care to point out one example of this practice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Earlier in this thread, I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
However, you could argue that religious persecution is an economic violation since it's a violation of property rights (assuming you're practicing on private property, where the owner approves).

[/ QUOTE ]

You quoted it like this:

[ QUOTE ]
Religious persecution is an economic violation since it's a violation of property rights - assuming you're practicing on private property, where the owner approves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made a statement of how a argument could be framed, and you re-purposed it to make it appear as though I was declaring a hardline position. You didn't use an elipsis and you capitalized "Religious".

I didn't make a big deal out of it at the time because your follow-up attack on the pseudo-strawman you poorly constructed was so pathetic.

Also in this thread, you said that I claim that societies don't exist, which is also out of context. I have claimed that societies are not sentient beings. I have probably said "society does not exist" but in the context of society being a rational, self-aware entity.

These are just examples in this thread. From now on, I'll point them out as you commit them.

[ QUOTE ]
I say you are losing your temper. (And that's in context.)

[/ QUOTE ]

What gives you that idea?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
In order to avoid the tyranny of the majority, the rights of the individual must be safe-guarded. This has been shown to be possible and workable through the legacy of the American Revolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Then Hamilton came around and ruined it all.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]

Earlier in this thread, I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
However, you could argue that religious persecution is an economic violation since it's a violation of property rights (assuming you're practicing on private property, where the owner approves).

[/ QUOTE ]

You quoted it like this:

[ QUOTE ]
Religious persecution is an economic violation since it's a violation of property rights - assuming you're practicing on private property, where the owner approves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made a statement of how a argument could be framed, and you re-purposed it to make it appear as though I was declaring a hardline position. You didn't use an elipsis and you capitalized "Religious".

[/ QUOTE ]
I apologize if this is construed (by you) as a "distortion". I was interested in the religion-related argument and simply edited for brevity the text. I did not alter it or deleted any words in-between. If the editing out of the words "you could argue that" is what constitutes for you "quoting out of context", then I'm apparently doing everything alright.

And I do not get this bit, now, about me making you out as supporting a "hardline position"! Either you subscribe to the notion that religious persecution is an economic violation -- or you don't! I don't care how deeply you believe that. If you do, and no matter how much you do, hardline or no hardline, I am disputing it. That's all there was to it.

[ QUOTE ]
Your follow-up attack on the pseudo-strawman you poorly constructed was so pathetic.

[/ QUOTE ] So you still argue that religious persecution is economic persecution?? Oh boy. And then you act all offended when I suggest that "everything is money with you".

[ QUOTE ]
You said that I claim that societies don't exist, which is also out of context. I have probably said "society does not exist" but in the context of society being a rational, self-aware entity. [WARNING! Quote was edited for brevity! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif]

[/ QUOTE ] It is not sentience or self-awareness that were propagated by me; society is not, of course, a living being literally. There is a number of attributes that a society has, inherently. Your denial of many of 'em was the core of the disagreement.

You sport an instictive abhorrence towards most things collective which blinds you to everything non-tyrannical about collectivity and which makes you refuse to acknowledge societal life in its many manifestations.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I apologize if this is construed (by you) as a "distortion". I was interested in the religion-related argument and simply edited for brevity the text. I did not alter it or deleted any words in-between. If the editing out of the words "you could argue that" is what constitutes for you "quoting out of context", then I'm apparently doing everything alright.

[/ QUOTE ]

It clearly changes the meaning of the quoted sentence.

[ QUOTE ]
And I do not get this bit, now, about me making you out as supporting a "hardline position"! Either you subscribe to the notion that religious persecution is an economic violation -- or you don't!

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless, you framed a quote in such a way to distort the intended meaning. My personal position was not what I was referring to at the time I typed that.

[ QUOTE ]
So you still argue that religious persecution is economic persecution?? Oh boy. And then you act all offended when I suggest that "everything is money with you".

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you maintain that religious persecution is not a violation of property rights? Or do you maintain that property rights are a non-economic issue?

[ QUOTE ]
It is not sentience or self-awareness that were propagated by me; society is not, of course, a living being literally. There is a number of attributes that a society has, inherently. Your denial of many of 'em was the core of the disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Attributes like "decision making" (actually I believe that is the primary dispute). I deny that societies make decisions. People make decisions, and people ascribe these decisions to "society" in order to advance their agenda.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you maintain that religious persecution is not a violation of property rights? Or do you maintain that property rights are a non-economic issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Religious persecution is not a violation of property rights,per se. Property rights are, of course, an economic issue -- and also a socio-political issue.

Sorry for the use of the term "socio-"; can't help it. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Hey, I do hope we are talking about property rights in their literal sense. I would just love to be conversing metaphorically about my property with the tax man! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Sorry if I'm repeating something, I haven't bothered to read all the way thru the thread, but OP is correct as far as this being a classic liberal vs. conservative issue, in fact this is what is called the modern dillema of government - whether to promote freedom (free market economy) or equality (regulations, universal health care, gov't assistance programs, etc). The original dillema of government, FWIW, is whether to promote freedom (civil rights) or order (security). Conservatives tend to promote freedom in the modern dillema, hence the support for tax cuts, free-trade agreements, deregulation, and privatization. Liberals favor equality - regulation and government assistance (social justice). Here's another classic liberal vs. conservative issue that I find fascinating (and pardon me if I hijack the thread): is the purpose of prison to punish or rehabilitate?