Leftist and Conservative/Libertarian Ideologues

[Keith Wheeler]

...assuming they haven't bought off too many police chiefs and Senators.

And just how do you propose to do that?

Look, I'm not challenging the notion that unfettered capitalism is the best solution (though Nash's work would suggest that unfettered capitalism/competition may not always create situations that lead to "improving" things).

My point is that "unfettered" requires a number of things, that don't exactly happen in the real world. Greedy officials and executives, asymmetrical information, artificial barriers -- these real world issues and many others mean that the concept of "unfettered" capitalism is not realistic.

If "true" conservativism is based completely on reason, I would argue that you shouldn't include "unfettered capitalism" as an aspect of this "non"-idealogy, but rather diligance to provide the "least fettered" market.

Let's just say for a minute that we lived in a just world, where executives, managers, employees, judeges, legislators, sheriffs, and tax men didn't lie and cheat. Asymmetrical information is still a huge information. You can't enter into a true "free market" contract with asymmetrical information. But just how can a consumer access complete information about the products he purchases to be able to make a complete decision?

Again, not saying that the free market isn't a lofty goal, but to be realistic and rational there are a number of issues that need to be addressed other than just reciting the benefits of a theoretical, but never attained, complete "free market".

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The right wing has been perfectly willing to legislate our personal lives for as long as any of us have been alive. Drug laws, abortion laws, sex laws, censorship, etc. Frankly, attempting to legislate personal "morality" -- i.e. "societal alterations" -- is a hallmark of the right.

I think you are confusing the realities of the Republican Party in the United States with right wing political thought. Right and left wing, in politics, has a very specific meaning. It originated in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when the two schools of political thought actually occupied either the right or left wing of the legislature building. Those sitting on the right opposed using the powers of the central government to make ANY experimental alterations in French society, while those on the left advocated for using the power of central government to make DRAMATIC experimental alterations in French society. The terms right wing and left wing stuck. Their meanings are essentially the same today as then.

 

[.38 Special]

Yeah, I read the Wikipedia entry too.

I just assumed that you were using definitions that had some kind of bearing on anything that has actually happened in the last hundred years or so.

Carry on...

 

[lamazza]

The two things I hated most about the left is their eagerness to spend money that wasn't theirs and take away our Constitutional rights and privacy while using the Constitution for toilet paper.
By those standards, G.W.Bush is the worst liberal we've had since LBJ.

+1
and +1 to Hawkeye for every single thing he says.

There is no such thing as a PC conservative. Conservatives are black and white and are based on reality. "Leftists" (read communists) are grey and based on theory-which has been proven over and over to NOT work.

Americans will not be taken by bi-partisanship. Sheep have to be herded from two sides not one. The different shades of "Rebulicans" serve to create one side and the "leftists" the other.

 

[.38 Special]

Those sitting on the right opposed using the powers of the central government to make ANY experimental alterations in French society...

Actually, it is my understanding that the folks to the right of the President's chair were French nobility who favored monarchy.

I suppose a mean-spirited person might point out that this does in fact closely resemble today's right-winger...

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

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. Central governments are far more capable of creating hells on earth than any corporation is. Yes, corporations are full of corrupt people too. That's another good reason for keeping government small and decentralized, i.e., even if they purchase a Senator or two, there's not much those Senators can do in a small, decentralized government, to harm your rights. That's the point.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Yeah, I read the Wikipedia entry too.

No, believe it or not, I actually paid attention in History of Western Civ. I'm a history geek.

 

[.38 Special]

Cool. I majored in history in my first abortive college attempt, way back when. Was funny to go back to school a few years ago and discover how much history has "changed".

 

[noops]

Conservatives are black and white and are based on reality. "Leftists" (read communists) are grey and based on theory-which has been proven over and over to NOT work.

I don't mean this as ad hominem, but you must be young or something. Mostly, it's the young (and sometimes the dumb) that think things are only black and white. I sure did, once upon a time.

As for being based on reality, the right has had some brilliant "reality" based theories that haven't worked out so well. Abstinence only? Good grief.

More to the point of this conversation, the "Right's" theories on Trickle Down/Supply Side/Laffer Curve economics have uniformly been proven wrong time and time again.

Now I say "Right" in quotes like that, because that certainly isn't the Republican party of my youth. But today, states controlled solely by republicans have the worst fiscal records, Democrats the second worst, and mixed governments are the best (source: USAToday, 20-May-03). As for current economic policies, they've been pretty bad. People tout the DIA and joblessness, but the DIA is really the a poor indicator of economic health, especially with corporate profits up and real wage indices down, that makes the DIA look great, when it's basically hiding a larger problem behind it. Budget deficit? Current Accounts? Real Wages? Dollar value? All these are real problems that have been exacerbated by Bush Admin policies. Now I'm no fan of Clinton, but in large part he was smart enough to listen to Rubin.

Bush, unfortunately has had poor economic advisors, starting notably with Snow.

Note: Yes, I am an economist, from a very conservative Jesuit Catholic university by education (Boston College) with degrees in Finance, Business Administration, and Economics. And just so's y'all don't think I'm some ivory tower economist, I manage operations and finance for a software company (yes I'm a Capitalist), yes I like to make money, especially so I can go out and get one of those new Sig 226 Elites.

 

[.38 Special]

Good post, noops. I rewrote a reply to that fellow's quote three or four times and never did make it into something that wouldn't get me punched out in the real world.

 

[ramis]

As for being based on reality, the right has had some brilliant "reality" based theories that haven't worked out so well. Abstinence only? Good grief.

Yeah, because handing out condoms and encouraging sex worked so much better. Single parent families work out so much better.

ramis

 

[Kim]

The idea that the Jesuit Boston College is conservative makes me giggle. I agree with Hawkeye. Wish we had statemen or women like him. Rubin is no friend of mine or of any conservative/libertarian thinker. I have seen him in action at talks broadcast on FSTV where he lets his true beliefs come out of his mouth. Sorry but the man is too left for me. If it is on FSTV you know it is out in left field. Talk about a way left propaganda station. I feel like I'm listening to Castro. Amy Goodman anyone????????????? Wonder if she still thinks Alger Hiss was innocent???????

 

[noops]

Rubin is no friend of mine or of any conservative/libertarian thinker

Well, I dunno much about all that. I do know that he's a friend of our economy, which is what he was hired to do. His policies certainly weren't perfect, but he sure had some good ones. And they worked. And Clinton, while moronic in a lot of ways, listened to him and others like the Fed, and then promptly took credit for their work. Either way, it worked.

Bush/Snow certainly haven't been friends(economically speaking in both monetary and fiscal policy) to conservatives, libertarians, Democrats, commies, or anyone else. In a critical economic policy position such as Fed chairman or Secretary of the Treasury, would you rather have a an "ideologically sound conservative" or "a damn good economist." I know what I'll take. It's the ideologues getting more voice than the experts that has damaged this "conservative" presidency and our economy. And again, they ain't my "conservatives," or at least not the ones I grew up with.

Noops

 

[noops]

a p.s. to that last one. We can have idealogical differences in a lot of ways, and still put experts in the right jobs. One of my business partners and I are totally opposite ends of the idealogical spectrum, yet he's a brilliant businessman (sold over $600 million in companies), and a fun guy to be around. We like working with each other, we respect each others differences, we have fun, and sometimes, when we go home, we vote for different people. We're not just ok with that, we think that's a pretty great American way to be.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

The problem is in the fact that the market isn't capable of being free. The problem is that greed is bad.

You think that well, "If the government was smaller, it wouldn't matter as much if a corporation bought a politician."

I would say that the reason the government has the level of power it has can be attributed more to our bib business community than to any other factor.

You see, in order to operate in a free market, consumers have to have correct information available about what they are purchasing. And, the makers of products are the last people on Earth that want you to have that information. We do alot of talk here on the highroad about what has been done in the name of propping up the poor at the cost of the rich, but I would say what has been done to the lower and middle and the "nouveau riche" for the advantage of the super rich has been much more dramatic.

Look at 1870s America. Look at the government taking land under eminent domain for private railroad companies. Look at our modern era of corporations getting massive tax breaks and credits at the cost of small business and their own labourers.

Perhaps the greatest travesty of all is our money. The most important piece of information a buyer can have is the true value of what he is buying. And you cannot have that information in a system where money is constantly being devalued through legalized counterfeiting. Which is exactly what is currently happening.

And who controls money, and credit? The US Government? No. The Federal Reserve, a private cartel of banks, who can legally counterfeit currency.

Now, does that mean that we should scrap free enterprise and private property? Heellll no! But, it does mean you can't make blanket statements about the market. It also means the point of government should be (as was earlier stated) to protect property rights (regardless of how much property), life (in all that entails), and try to curtail the power of business owners who violate other's rights.

Fortunately, the answer to doing that is simple. To begin, corporations will have no more (in fact should have fewer) rights than living, breathing, citizens.

 

[Keith Wheeler]

That's why conservatives et al favor small, decentralized government, and minimal if any regulation of industry. Central governments are far more capable of creating hells on earth than any corporation is. Yes, corporations are full of corrupt people too.

It's not just about "corrupt" people.

And it's also not about comparing levels of hell. It's about the reality that centralized corporations can create situations that are not at all living up to the concepts of a free, efficient market. And just like centralized governments, they end up acting like the much dreaded planned centralized control of soviet type systems.

For markets to be efficient, there are a number of requirements. These are not options, or "gee, wouldn't it be nice", these are requirements for an efficient ("free") market.

One of those requirements is "numerous buyers and sellers". There are a number of other requirements for an efficient market -- ease of entry, availability of information -- but let's focus on "numerous buyers and sellers".

What about one of the issues with Wal-Mart? Due to their control of their market, they have many suppliers for which Wal-Mart is the only viable customer. That's not an efficient market. Whether or not you can buy cheap crap from them is not the point. Wal-Mart is known for going to suppliers and demanding a certain price reduction, or they won't buy the product. That in and of itself is fine in a free market, if there were numerous buyers whose combined actions pushed the pricing. As it stands, whether you care to admit it or not, Wal-Mart in that position is behaving like a "command economy", that is communism. They are the only buyer, and command the price. That's not an efficient free market. (Note: I'm not Wal-Mart bashing, just using one practice of theirs to make a point.)

Now, I'm not a fan of government regulation. But the question stands: how does this ineffeciency in the market get corrected?

I'm of the personal opinion that small decentralized businesses can be just as good of an idea as small decentralized governments. I mean, does anyone truly believe that AT&T gobbling up every communications provider they can is really going to eximplify the strength of efficient markets? Don't give me "economies of scale"; those economies of scale will only go to work for AT&T. The concept that Smith proposed was that nations (or societies) benefit from competitive markets. (Which is still an ideology, again Nash showed that this isn't always true) Yes, economies of scale are one way to compete....but when you have oligarchies (one step away from monopolies), there's not enough competition for the market to be efficient. I think there are a lot of "conservative" politicians (perhaps not by your definition, but people in the republican party) who hear the corporations say "but the economies of scale are better for the market" and they jump "oh, it's better for the market".

When you have a few (or one!) large, heavily centralized corporations they (or it) act just like command economies -- that is communism.

Now, again, how to deal with that ineffeciency in our market?

Considering the asymmetry of information, and the state of mega-global corporations, I'd say if you took away governments right now we would live under a worse hell, a hell controlled by a handful of very powerful corporations. Network 23. Big Brother. Of course where we are today, in my mind, is that we have a combined Big Brother = Large Gov and the Oligarchies.

Like mordechaianiliewicz said, this isn't to say that private property and the "free market" are wrong, quite the contrary if you noticed I've come out against command economies no matter how they are generated, whether through "red revolution" or corporate wrangling..

Here's the big question for all you "grounded in reality black and white rational thought only" conservatives: just how do you propose to get rid of the current situation, where the power base will not allow government to get smaller? There are way too many powerful and wealthy people, both in and out of government, who profit from the current situation. How to change that? If there are no viable proposals for this, I'd say you aren't so grounded in reality.


Edited to add:

To begin, corporations will have no more (in fact should have fewer) rights than living, breathing, citizens.

Amen. That's what Jefferson said from the beginning.

The free market is a great idea, but remember this is all about living, breathing people. Only individuals can truly enjoy freedom. While "the market" is a big nebulous collection of individual actions, corporations are an artificial construct, and as such should not enjoy greater rights and privileges than the human beings that allow them to exist. Steamboat Willie belonged to a man, a man who is now dead. His property rights are gone. Building layer upon layer of artificial corporate facades does not equal a "free market".

I've said it before here -- the Boston Tea Party did not attack British government assets, but rather the assets of a corporation that was profiteering from immoral government regulations.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Corporations don't have the power to impose tyranny that a large and central government does. Corporate greed will usually give expression in the form of producing a better product or hiring the best advertisement agency for their product. When it becomes criminal, we have laws for dealing with that, assuming they haven't bought off too many police chiefs and Senators.

And the "laws for dealing with that" are implemented through governmental regulations. Which are, generally, opposed by conservatives every time they are proposed.

I don't think anyone here is saying that government power shouldn't be subject to strong controls, e.g., the Bill of Rights. Or that a centralized government is less responsive to people's rights than a more decentralized one. There is always going to be a tension between individual liberty and societal order. The problem is when an ideology embraces one to the exclusion of the other. Especially when the adherents to that ideology believe that their view is a reflection of the only objective reality. That can lead to dangerous repressions.

 

[Kim]

The left uses the word greed to talk about BIT CORPORATIONS. But they forget all about the word Covet which is a very specific type of greed which they support. They also forget about the word steal. If they can make stealing legal then it is not stealing as the government decided it was not stealing. What is greed for them except a word they like to throw around to sound Moral when only taking about corporations which is a direct showing of their disdain for Capitalism. Now you will never hear them talk of the greed of government which they frame with their Marxist retoric of class warfae (Thy shall NOT covet) which they use to cause people to covet ,get angry and talk about the greed of others except their own. Nothing new just a more gentile way to use communist teaching in a country where if they came out and discussed Socialism or commumism they would have apples thrown at them. Instead we see a rich lawyer who made his money fasely suing people like me in malpractice suits (that have NO factual basis that physician cause cerebral palsy ) talking about the TWO AMERICANS ie. a fight between the classes. Trying to show people their false consciousness and all that tripe. He speaks communism in a mild voice of caring for the poor and the children while he sits like a member of the Communist party in his multi million dollar house thinking he knows what I need and how HE is going to make me take it. Makes me want to rip my hair out by the roots. Just like he used incorporation to pay much less taxes including SS and MC taxes on his riches. And if the left thinks people of the middle class are going to run around to a bunch of little more expensive (botiques for the middle class) stores for their daily needs they are nuts. Wal-Mart is nothing more than the old General Store idea made more efficient. Talk about Reactionary leftist thinkng and Wal-mart bashing is it.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Marxist retoric of class warfae

Marxists like Warren Buffet? “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

 

[longrifleman]

There are way too many powerful and wealthy people, both in and out of government, who profit from the current situation. How to change that? If there are no viable proposals for this, I'd say you aren't so grounded in reality.

I'm not sure there are any fixes for this. From my haphazard study of history, it seems to be this concentration of wealth and power that eventually leads to the corruption and rot that destroys most societies. It doesn't seem to make much difference what the outward form of society is.

I've been trying to think of any examples of large corporations abusing their customers without resorting to the corecive power of govt to allow them to get away with it and I can't. There may be some, so please provide them. Keith's example of captive supplier doesn't meet that level, as the supplier has the option to try to find other markets, and nobody from Wally World is going to kill them or throw them in jail if they do.

My attraction to small, decentralised govt is to postphone this as long as possible. Blatantly socialist systems seem to have very short lives. Old fashioned dictatorships(monarchies, warlords, oligarchies, theorcracies, etc.)
have a longer history of being stable. Not just, or fair, or nice, but stable.

 

[glummer]

Markets do not require comprehensive knowledge. Markets have been evolving for as long as people have been trading with each other, and no one has ever been remotely close to having ALL the information they need for informed decisions. A market is a MECHANISM for using whatever happens to exist at the time.

Markets operate only on what exists; they do not CONTROL all of what exists. Where slavery was legal, there was a market in slaves. Where it is illegal, there is no such market. The market did not create either circumstance. The government did.

Corporations are not creations of free markets. They exist by government fiat, only.

The largest, most powerful corporation in the world is the United States government.

Everything that can be wrong with a business corporation can be wrong with the government as well.

Trying to escape a bully by submitting to a bigger bully is suicidally stupid.

“Free market” basically means free of coercion. The market in slaves would not be a free market, no matter how many competitors it had, or how great was the level of consumer knowledge.

Pollution is not the product of a free market. Government laws are required to suppress the exercise of the natural right of self-defense against the polluter. That is a regulated market.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

And the "laws for dealing with that" are implemented through governmental regulations. Which are, generally, opposed by conservatives every time they are proposed.

Not at all. There are criminal codes that apply to everyone equally, such as those making it illegal to defraud, or to hire thugs to beat up competitors, just to name two. Conservatives favor criminal codes against actual criminal conduct. This is not anything like "government regulations," however. You do understand the difference between 1) criminal codes that apply as much to the individual as to a group of individuals acting in concert on the one hand, and 2) government regulation of business on the other, don't you? This is an apples and oranges thing.

By the way, if I am not at liberty under the law to dump toxic waste into the common water supply (and doing such things has been illegal since well before the founding of our nation), corporations should not be either. It was likely corrupt government protection of corporations that led to all the past abuses you so vehemently decry. Simply apply the laws equally to corporations as to individuals, and you solve all these problems, i.e., prevent government from being powerful enough to protect large corporations, and you solve all these problems. If it's powerful enough to protect them from ordinary criminal codes, large corporations will inevitably purchase such protection from corrupt government officials and legislators.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

There are criminal codes that apply to everyone equally, such as those making it illegal to defraud, or to hire thugs to beat up competitors, just to name two. Conservatives favor criminal codes against actual criminal conduct. This is not anything like "government regulations," however.

Governmental regulations are the way that laws are enforced. I can't think of any laws that don't apply to individuals, maybe you could cite some? Laws, especially ones dealing with complex technical issues, are written in general language to attain some goal. It is then up to the agencies that oversee the area of law addressed by the legislation to come up with regulations for attaining those goals. There is no way a majority of Congress could ever be brought to understand an issue like air pollution to the extent necessary to set max daily loads, lifetime loads, etc., for the thousands of potential toxic substances that can be released into the air.

By the way, if I am not at liberty under the law to dump toxic waste into the common water supply (and doing such things has been illegal since well before the founding of our nation), corporations should not be either.

Please cite these laws. Who defines what is toxic? Who defines the amount that makes it toxic? Who defines how the water should be tested?

It was likely corrupt government protection of corporations that led to all the past abuses you so vehemently decry.

In some cases, that is probably true. In any case, what was that corrupt government protecting the corporations from? I think you're trying to say it was protection from the righteous ability of the public to protect itself. How to do that other than through the government? Yes, it's corruptable and imperfect, but it's the only power the little guy has to go up against the corps.

Yesterday, Dupont released a cloud of titanium tetrachloride not far from me. Can you tell me whether I should have been worried? Someone that has the resources and expertise needs to set the levels of acceptable releases, needs to be able to measure the releases, and needs to be able to go after anyone, corp or corpus, that breaks the rules. Can I do that? Can I go up against Dupont and the small army of experts thay can bring to bear? Get real.

 

[Kim]

Warren Bufett is a leftist. Leftists in this country tend to be rich. Just like alot of poor and middle class people are conservatives. Notice how he has ducked the inheritence tax (he wants everyone to pay) by giving the largest majority of his money to a foundation(s) where it will not be taxed. IMAGINE THAT!!!!!!!!! His lefty ideas will be funded way after he is dust. I don't blame him I would have done the same except I would not have been a hypocrite.

 

[DRZinn]

The free market is what happens when all are free to make their own decisions. This is an end in itself, not a means. I don't care what the outcome is.