Leftist and Conservative/Libertarian Ideologues

Conservatives

Hawkeye wrote

Keith, the corruptibility of human beings is a given for conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians. That's why conservatives et al favor small, decentralized government, and minimal if any regulation of industry.

Click to expand...

Conservatives have historically stood for fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility. The lines are being blurred by the difference between stated platforms and the results we see. Administrations under Reagan, Bush and Bush managed to reduce tax rates, increase tax revenues, and outspend any "tax and spend" liberals in history. Conservatives have been willing to surrender personal freedoms under the assumption the government's defensive powers, even if used proactively, will make them safer, even if less free. Vis. preemptive forays into foreign countries, ignoring warrants for wiretaps, nation building on the backs of our children (deficits).

I just think the lines are blurred, as Democrats reign in expansion of powers, republicans give away freedoms, and Libertarians jump on one platform or the other, for sake of survival (Bortz).

Perhaps we should develop labels after people are elected, and not allow them to select labels for themselves they cannot uphold.

Danny

I acknowledge that there are a lot of real natural forces in the world, markets aren't the only one.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but markets are not a "natural" force. They are a human creation, the product of social interaction. You could argue that every human product is "natural" because we are essentially a part of nature too, but the fact is that we use the word natural to mean something that is categorically different from humankind and our creations. Politics, government, laws, taxes, and markets aren't "natural," nor are the clothes on our backs or the houses we live in.

The only thing "natural" in this whole discussion is people's tendency to see their own ideologies as natural and everyone else's as bizarre and deviant. Fish can't see the water they're swimming in.

I have my own ideology. Leave me alone or I'll make you leave me alone. Failing that, I'll make you wish you had.

Sorry, but markets are not a "natural" force. They are a human creation, the product of social interaction. You could argue that every human product is "natural" because we are essentially a part of nature too, but the fact is that we use the word natural to mean something that is categorically different from humankind and our creations. Politics, government, laws, taxes, and markets aren't "natural," nor are the clothes on our backs or the houses we live in.

Click to expand...

Note: Apologies to all for resurecting this thread. I will not beat the equine cadaver, which we can all agree is quite dead. I just wanted to respond to this post.

toivo: I believe you're thinking of the word "natural" in a different way than I was using it. It can be argued either way whether human actions and products should be considered a natural part of the world. I'm not really talking about those in this discussion. Rather, I consider markets to be a natural manifestation of human consciousness, along the lines of language, societal organization, religion, etc. They are natural phenomena that arise from and act on the human world in the same way that the weather arises from and acts on the physical properties of the planet.

No one sets out to create market behavior, it is cumulative impact of the way people act.

No one sets out to create market behavior, it is cumulative impact of the way people act.

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I think that a whole lot of people spend a whole lot of effort on creating market behavior. You can even get a college degree in creating market behavior.

I know what you're saying, but it is my belief that market behavior came along way down the road, long after language, religion, etc. Unlike those things, it is the product of a variety of influences, none of which were inevitable. Without language, without social organization, without the religious impulse, we wouldn't be recognizably human. We were recognizably human for many millennia without a market economy.

Is this horse dead yet?

We were recognizably human for many millennia without a market economy.

Click to expand...

Something as simple as what time to go to bed in order to get up and milk the cows is a market decision. Is another hour quilting more valuable than another hour sleeping?

Is another hour quilting more valuable than another hour sleeping?

Click to expand...

That's only a market decision if the value in "valuable" is a cash value. Otherwise you're really stretching the meaning of "market."

That's only a market decision if the value in "valuable" is a cash value. Otherwise you're really stretching the meaning of "market."

Click to expand...

Not at all. Economics is simply human action and interaction. The resource to be traded might be paper, it might be gold, it might be an extra hour of sleep. Same thing.

So "cash" wasn't the best choice of words: Substitute "trade," then, and tell me how the decision to spend an hour of one's time in what are essentially survival activities (sleeping, milking, quilting) is a market decision if there is no one buying or selling the labor or its products?

Well, you raise some good points. The Dobe !Kung had a sharing-based "economy" if that's the right word. Hunters got non-material rewards, status mostly, for providing meat to the tribe. The basis of their survival was a nut (mongongo?) that is produced prolifically in the Kalahari, so no one suffered a scarcity in the most important staple. It has been hypothesized that such economies were the norm in prehistoric societies. Of course, we can't really know.

It's been a long time since I had Cultural Anthropology. Maybe someone remembers the particulars better.

It's a decision to trade one good for another.

Doc, do you mean good as in goods and services, or as in the philosophical concept of good as the goal of human life, which may or may not be material? Or both?

Trade is one form of human interaction. Wouldn't you say there are others?

Anyone who believes "Conservatives see in black and white, and are reality-based, while liberals see in shades of gray, and are ideology-based" is an utter, utter fool. No political viewpoint is based entirely on observations of reality; the only people who even attempt to form conclusions based entirely on observed data are scientists, and they must take great pains to ensure that their findings are not corrupted by observer bias. Reality is never black and white, and no set of human ideas is all-encompassing enough to address every situation that may come into being in the course of human affairs.

The supremacy of the free market is obvious to anyone who's lived and breathed? No examples are necessary? This is pure religious dogma. In reality, unfettered markets have many ill effects. The US meat-packing industry engaged in grossly unsanitary and dishonest practices until these were exposed by Richard Upton Sinclair's book "The Jungle," and after that it wasn't individual citizens but the government that put a stop to it with the Pure Food and Drug Act.

If consumers are totally informed about the products they buy they could indeed make perfect decisions, but no one has the time to learn all the ins and outs of every product they purchase and producers will do their best to make sure consumers don't have access to such information. When you buy a gun, do you find out where the iron was mined and what smelting processes were employed, the composition of the polymers, and so on? Probably not, and much of this information is protected by "trade secret." It usually takes government intervention to make industries disclose any information about their products, like the law that mandated nutrition labels on food products. Before that you had no way of knowing whether you were downing monosodium glutamate or trans-fatty acids or rat poison with your meals.

And the greatest folly of the free market religion is its belief in "a market free of force." Force is part and parcel of human affairs, and gun owners of all people should know that. Believing that businesses will never use force to keep their competition or their workers down in a perfect free market is like an anti believing that he doesn't need to know how to defend himself because the world is a happy place where bad things don't happen to good people. I find it amusing that people say free market religion is based entirely on factual observations and then never cite facts to back up their beliefs.

Believing that businesses will never use force to keep their competition or their workers down in a perfect free market is like an anti believing that he doesn't need to know how to defend himself because the world is a happy place where bad things don't happen to good people.

Click to expand...

If the market was "perfect", businesses wouldn't be using force. I think we have a bit of a straw man. Sometimes admiration for free markets does approach religious fervor, but mostly it is a recognition that no matter it's flaws freedom of action is the most likely way to provide the most good for the most people.

One of the greatest failings of command economies is the inability of a small number of people to have enough knowlege to make decisions for everybody in the country. If 5 individual citizens can't find out what they need to know to make an informed decision, why do you think 5 bureaucrats will do better? If one of the individuals makes a mistake, only one person suffers. If one of the bureaucrats screws up, how many millions will suffer for it?

I haven't seen anyone here arguing for anarchy, and I would agree that one of the legitimate functions of govt is leveling the playing field by providing as much information as possible. Labeling laws are an excellent example of an area where an increase in govt is a positive good. If the intervention stops there. Unfortunately we've seen that the same forces that pushed for that now wants even more control. You won't be allowed to make a "wrong" decision. See the transfat stupidity in NY city for a classic example.

I do think that the greatest long term weakness of any free market system is the realization by the powerfull that it is easier to make money by controlling the govt than it is by making a better wiget. The biggest blind spot that almost all liberal types seem to have is to think that making the govt more powerfull will somehow stop this. All you really do is make the takeover of govt even more attractive.

One of the greatest failings of command economies is the inability of a small number of people to have enough knowlege to make decisions for everybody in the country. If 5 individual citizens can't find out what they need to know to make an informed decision, why do you think 5 bureaucrats will do better? If one of the individuals makes a mistake, only one person suffers. If one of the bureaucrats screws up, how many millions will suffer for it?

Click to expand...

I don't argue in favor of command economies. I argue in favor of an economy with a balance between state control and free enterprise. Capitalism and socialism are present to varying degrees in every successful economy. These two principles are like sodium and chlorine; they are stable when together but volatile in their pure forms, and they can only be purified by highly artificial means. The economic boom of the 1950s and the growth of the American middle class came about because of the "socialist" GI Bill, which passed by a single vote in the face of opposition by "free market conservatives."

I do think that the greatest long term weakness of any free market system is the realization by the powerfull that it is easier to make money by controlling the govt than it is by making a better wiget. The biggest blind spot that almost all liberal types seem to have is to think that making the govt more powerfull will somehow stop this. All you really do is make the takeover of govt even more attractive.

Click to expand...

This is a common libertarian argument: corporate abuses are made possible by government power, since those abuses rely on industry's ability to manipulate the government. Sometimes that is true, as in the case of Enron writing energy policy, but in many other cases it's not. When mining companies paid their employees in company scrip, making them completely dependent on their employer and unable to do business anywhere else, government had nothing to do with it. When robber barons hired the Pinkerton detective agency to terrorize and kill workers who were suspected of labor organizing activities, government had nothing to do with it. When smelters pollute land and hit anyone who publishes about it with a SLAPP suit, government has nothing to do with it. When Microsoft opted to buy out and beat down its competitors instead of building better software, a practice that continues to this day, the government had nothing to do with it. It would be nice if economic success were determined simply by who built the best widget or provided the best service, but that's sadly untrue. Just ask the makers of Betamax video tapes or the 10mm cartridge.

When robber barons hired the Pinkerton detective agency to terrorize and kill workers who were suspected of labor organizing activities, government had nothing to do with it.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure murder and assault were against the law even then. If the company goons weren't being prosecuted I would suspect a little collusion from the local govt employees. Which sorta proved my point.

SLAPP suit

Click to expand...

I thought the judicial system was part of the govt. Again, sorta proving my point.

I don't argue in favor of command economies. I argue in favor of an economy with a balance between state control and free enterprise

Click to expand...

The infamous Third Way. A little bit of socialism usually turns out to be like a little bit of pregnancy. It always grows bigger and turns into a bloody mess. Let's hope at the end, the new baby is more JC than Damien.

Sometimes admiration for free markets does approach religious fervor, but mostly it is a recognition that no matter it's flaws freedom of action is the most likely way to provide the most good for the most people.

Click to expand...

How about: Sometimes admiration for free markets does approach religious fervor, because there is recognition that no matter its flaws freedom of action is the most likely way to provide the most good for the most people.

Trade is one form of human interaction. Wouldn't you say there are others?

Click to expand...

Of course, but the decisions are made the same way, whether consciously or otherwise.

These two principles are like sodium and chlorine; they are stable when together but volatile in their pure forms, and they can only be purified by highly artificial means.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Capitalism can be "purified" by simply leaving it alone.

And the GI Bill is not socialism, it's a part of the compensation paid to military members for their service.

When mining companies paid their employees in company scrip, making them completely dependent on their employer and unable to do business anywhere else, government had nothing to do with it. When robber barons hired the Pinkerton detective agency to terrorize and kill workers who were suspected of labor organizing activities, government had nothing to do with it. When smelters pollute land and hit anyone who publishes about it with a SLAPP suit, government has nothing to do with it. When Microsoft opted to buy out and beat down its competitors instead of building better software, a practice that continues to this day, the government had nothing to do with it. It would be nice if economic success were determined simply by who built the best widget or provided the best service, but that's sadly untrue. Just ask the makers of Betamax video tapes or the 10mm cartridge.

Click to expand...

Wow. So many fallacies in one paragraph.

- The mine employees were free to strike, or quit.
- If they struck and were beaten or killed for it, THAT is the violation, not the form of payment.
- Lawsuits are settled in court by whom? The government. If a polluter, by use of a lawsuit, gets government to shut down a whistleblower, that's a government violation instigated by the polluter.
- I can't address the Microsoft case in detail, because I don't know the details, but unless there was coercion involved, where's the violation?
- "Best" widget or service is not determined soley by the utility of the item or service as determined by some expert. Here's an example: I am working my way through college hauling junk for a franchise of a Canadian company. We charge obscenely high rates, IMO, for hauling junk away. There are one-man and two-man hauling operations that would take the same junk in the same amount of time for a whole lot less money, yet we do a booming business. Why? Name recognition, customer service, ease of scheduling, etc. Those things are valued just as much as the actual service of removing the junk. Same thing applies for Betamax or 10mm. And yes, advertising has an effect, but "best" is whatever the consumer wants, regardless of why he wants it.

I am working my way through college

Click to expand...

And:

How about: Sometimes admiration for free markets does approach religious fervor, because there is recognition that no matter its flaws freedom of action is the most likely way to provide the most good for the most people.

Click to expand...

Becoming an English teacher are we? At least I didn't get the paper back with a D and "try harder next time" written in red across the top.

Just foolin'. Your version is better than mine. I really do need an editor (or ghost writer).

When capitalism is left alone, the result will eventually be the same as Soviet-style communism. Standard Oil, Bell Telephone and the Beef Trust are excellent case studies. In an unregulated market every industry will eventually be monopolized, and the dominant entity will quash any competition. Then the corporations holding those monopolies will start merging together, and eventually one entity will control all commerce in its home nation. This entity will have influence that today's megacorps can only dream of, and sooner or later it will merge with the government outright. What remains will be a mirror image of the Soviet Union.

Free market theorists like competition, but industrial barons hate it and would dispense with it if not for antitrust laws. They don't care about the quality products and services that competition creates, only about profit. If Standard, Bell and the rest weren't broken up, we would probably be near or at the scenario described above right now. Just look at the situation with media corporations today. With regulation withdrawn, the hundred plus companies that controlled US mass communications merged into five. It seems that laws play a big part in creating a competitive market.

As for SLAPP suits, what are you going to do... abolish the judicial system? The only way to prevent such abuses, absent a law against SLAPP suits (ooh more regulation!) is to get rid of civil courts. Pinkerton tactics wouldn't work without some government collusion, but how are you going to prevent that in a free market utopia? Any big, rich company is going to have political clout. Do megacorporations get the same penalty for murdering someone that individual people do in libertarian happy land? How does this come about without lots of anti-corruption legislation and government action, the very things libertarians abhor?

Lastly, here's a question I've never heard a libertarian satisfactorily answer. Let's say that we're living in an unregulated Free Market Paradise, and I'm loaded to the gills. I want a piece of land you own, but you're not selling. I can't use Force!!! to make you give up your land, but what if I decide to buy all the property around your house and forbid you to cross it? Unless you have a well and a bunch of crops, I can legally kill you through starvation this way, and even if you have the means to feed yourself your life is going to suck until you submit to me. Is this okay for me to do this in Free Market Paradise?

When capitalism is left alone, the result will eventually be the same as Soviet-style communism.

Click to expand...

OK, I'm done.

QuestionEverything said:

When capitalism is left alone, the result will eventually be the same as Soviet-style communism.

Click to expand...

QE:

You have just disqualified yourself from being taken seriously.

It should be obvious that totally unfettered capitalism produces monopolies, which merge together to form supermonopolies that will eventually come to control all commerce in a market and against which no one can compete. Under Bell Telephone the telecommunications industry was very "Soviet," with abysmal customer service and sluggish technological advancement because there was no one to compete with Bell. If similar monopolies had not been broken up or prevented by government policy beforehand, every economic sector would be that way. This is the case in many developing countries which, while capitalist in name, allow big companies to take over their economies and destroy all competition.