Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Obama spoke of business loans too. Schiff left that out of his account of the speech. Thus, he misrepresented what Obama said.

Obama used a semicolon, thus any critique that doesn't employ a semi-colon is a misrepresentation.

The omission is not as minor as you pretend it to be. Obama spoke of business loans frequently during that speech, mentioning them nearly every time he spoke of consumer loans. Now you're engaging in misrepresentation.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Praxeology? You got that from Mises. In other words, you confirmed my point! It seems to me that you're guilty of the very things you claim others are guilty of.

I got that from austrian school of business, not a blog I googled to respond to you.

It makes no difference to my point. You're parroting what you've learned too.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
The correlation was enough to dispel your argument.

Enjoy your safe driving at 275.

Enjoy the higher taxes on your income.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
While I'm not an absolutist, that doesn't mean I'm unable to unwind illogic or to recognize solid logic when I see it.

I'm not sure that's the case frankly, although I do believe that you believe that.

And thus, once again you demonstrate that not only are you completely ideological, you're so wrapped up in your ideology that you can't understand how anyone could possibly think about these matters in ways outside of your ideology.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
And once again you confirm my point. You only back up your claims when called out on them!

I assume an amount of education on the topic, yes.

That takes the cake. Blame the other guy when you fail to substantiate your assertions.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
I'm not asking about the last days of the USSR, I'm asking about those statistics from the FRB. I didn't present them as the problem, I presented them as refutation of Schiff's claim that the problem was productive capacity. Those stats indicate otherwise. It's simple really. He made a claim, I tried to find relevant evidence regarding that claim and what I found did not support the claim. Instead of acknowledging that, you've dismissed the statistics with a sideways complaint about the FRB, without directly confronting those statistics. And you still refuse to confront them.

Because you either don't understand the words I'm typing or you're willfully ignoring them.

I found them wanting. I found you repeating a rule (i.e. productive capacity based on margin isn't grounded by inherent demand) rather than answering the question. And, moreover, rather than show how your rule applied to the statistics from the FRB, you trotted out some contrived fable about the last days of the USSR. You were clearly avoiding the question and still are.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
You've dropped so many disconnects there I can't help but think you're bullshitting. How many fictitious scenarios does it take for you to explain something anyway? Assume for the moment, imagine this, imagine that, please! You're all over the place.

I'm trying to hold your hand to get my point across, you appear incapable of discourse at what should be a more appropriate level. Just wait until we talk about Dick, Jane, and Spot, you'll love that story.

I think you were simply filibustering. I think you weren't sure just what exactly you were trying to say, so you simply piled on the words hoping that something half way coherent would emerge. Seriously, does it take a dozen paragraphs to explain that money and capital aren't necessarily the same thing? That's not on me, that's all on you.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
If you're concerned with lower income people losing wealth through this form of transfer, then you ought to advocate for higher taxes on greater income, you ought to advocate for more government giveaways to lower income people, so that they don't have to go into debt to survive. The other day I read that the entire amount of money spent by the Federal Government on food stamps each year is around $40 billion dollars. That's not much more than the latest "payment" to AIG. If you're concerned about low income people racking up debts, you ought to be calling for loosening the qualifications for food stamps, so that more low income working people can qualify for food stamps, thus easing their burdens and reducing their need for credit. If some group is going to take the hit, then it ought to be a group better able to withstand it.

Income redistribution is theft, and is morally reprehensible. I despise it when it favors the rich and when it favors the poor. You're too caught up in your "eat the rich" pablum to recognize the systemic problem with what Obama is doing. This stimulus plan is a wealth transfer from the bottom third to the upper 2 or 3%.

Further it won't help the economy and behind the scenes the people at the reins of power know this. It's just graft.

If you want to get all moral, wrap your head around the reality that private property is murder. It robs individuals of the basics things they need to live - land, water, air. It robs individuals of their limited time on this earth. And these thefts murder body and mind. If you want to talk up what's morally reprehensible, dig deeper. Dig into the compulsion that would supplant society with the market while claiming that anything less is morally reprehensible.

The last three decades of free market based policies have resulted in a massive wealth transfer to the top 1%. To claim that resetting national policies to those that predated such an obscene transfer of wealth, will somehow perpetuate such obscene transfer of wealth, is utterly absurd. The fact is that the rich have gotten extremely fat over the last three decades, in large part because they managed to rewrite the rules to their favor. They're not only ripe for eating, they deserve to be eaten. They didn't share the wealth with those who created it for them. It's time they pay up.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
That's all fine and well, but so what. You might as well be counting angels dancing about the head of a pin.

The so what is the difference between credit and capital. If you're going to pretend to have an educated opinion on the issue you should at least internalize the verbage and quit being so sloppy with your useage. They are words, and they have a meaning.

So you went through all that to answer a question I asked three posts back and one that you've already adequately answered? And now you're talking about internalizing verbage and avoiding sloppy usage? Please. You're filibustering.

I asked you to clarify the relationship between money and capital, not credit and capital. You responded by claiming that I was using the word "money" in nebulous fashion and that it could mean credit, capital and specie. That was a good step towards clarification, but ultimately, you undermined it by laying out what you see as the difference between credit and capital, with an explanation involving money at every step - money in the bank, money in the bank, money spent to produce, money spent to consume. You laid that all out to better argue that credit doesn't produce wealth, it merely transfers it, in your view from the poor to the rich. It seems to me that behind the argument lurks the fact that the rich hold the wealth and will say whatever they have to say to hold onto their wealth. If you take our wealth, you're not really taking it from us, you're taking it from yourself, so don't go there!

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
In other news, is anyone else enjoying seeing the Republican Party tear itself apart?

You betcha! Give 'em more rope!

A month or so back when Obama told Republicans in Congress that they needed to get passed Limbaugh and get to the people's work, I wasn't sure that was a smart thing to do. Now it appears to have been really smart. Republican Senators and Congressman and now the party chairman, can't say anything that might upset the "Grand Poobah". Even something as innocuous as saying that Limbaugh is an entertainer gets them into hot water. Ironically, for years now Limbaugh himself has excused his blatant partisanship as entertainment. Well, I'm finally entertained!

The question now is how long will it take the msm to recognize that the Republican party is washed up and doesn't deserve the excessive attention.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

If you want to get all moral, wrap your head around the reality that private property is murder. It robs individuals of the basics things they need to live - land, water, air. It robs individuals of their limited time on this earth. And these thefts murder body and mind.

Lol. Didnt you spend three pages in one of our previous discusions arguing you were not in fact a communist?

Up until this point I thought we probably generally agreed on the current economic policy..but I'm at a loss to see how you can square a dislike for private property with support for a liberal system of economics which presuposes private property...surely you dont think Keynes was a communist?

Jesse

Quote: Original post by laeuchli

Quote: Original post by LessBread

If you want to get all moral, wrap your head around the reality that private property is murder. It robs individuals of the basics things they need to live - land, water, air. It robs individuals of their limited time on this earth. And these thefts murder body and mind.

Lol. Didnt you spend three pages in one of our previous discusions arguing you were not in fact a communist?

Up until this point I thought we probably generally agreed on the current economic policy..but I'm at a loss to see how you can square a dislike for private property with support for a liberal system of economics which presuposes private property...surely you dont think Keynes was a communist?

Jesse

I doubt seriously he's a syndicalist or an anarcho-syndicalist, or a mutualist, or a modern day Proudhon. He's just playing at a bit of one-up-manship.

Labor Theory of Value has been displaced for quite some time.

Private property is actually the core element in liberty, beginning with the right to one ones self, and the fruit of one's labor. If these two rights are ignored nothing else can follow. All additional liberties are an expansion of the right to self ownership.

People of Less's political persuasion get it when it relates to abortion issues, and some of them, like Less, get it when it extends to victimless crimes(at least drugs if not prostitution) but then fall off the wagon whenever it relates to things not attached or consumed by your body.

Quote: Original post by laeuchli

Quote: Original post by LessBread
If you want to get all moral, wrap your head around the reality that private property is murder. It robs individuals of the basics things they need to live - land, water, air. It robs individuals of their limited time on this earth. And these thefts murder body and mind.

Lol. Didnt you spend three pages in one of our previous discusions arguing you were not in fact a communist?

LOL Indeed! I don't recall spending three pages on the subject, but I do recall setting forward some damning criticisms of communism. I'm not a communist. You don't need to be a communist to believe those things. Ever heard of Henry George? If not, check him out. Like Lysander Spooner, he's another great American radical from the 19th century.

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
Up until this point I thought we probably generally agreed on the current economic policy..but I'm at a loss to see how you can square a dislike for private property with support for a liberal system of economics which presuposes private property...surely you dont think Keynes was a communist?

Keynes was not a communist. I don't dislike private property, I dislike assertions that redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor is morally reprehensible. I could have used the Bible to make the same point: The scoundrel's methods are wicked, he makes up evil schemes to destroy the poor with lies, even when the plea of the needy is just. Isaiah 32:7

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by laeuchli

Quote: Original post by LessBread
If you want to get all moral, wrap your head around the reality that private property is murder. It robs individuals of the basics things they need to live - land, water, air. It robs individuals of their limited time on this earth. And these thefts murder body and mind.

Lol. Didnt you spend three pages in one of our previous discusions arguing you were not in fact a communist?

LOL Indeed! I don't recall spending three pages on the subject, but I do recall setting forward some damning criticisms of communism. I'm not a communist. You don't need to be a communist to believe those things. Ever heard of Henry George? If not, check him out. Like Lysander Spooner, he's another great American radical from the 19th century.

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
Up until this point I thought we probably generally agreed on the current economic policy..but I'm at a loss to see how you can square a dislike for private property with support for a liberal system of economics which presuposes private property...surely you dont think Keynes was a communist?

Keynes was not a communist. I don't dislike private property, I dislike assertions that redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor is morally reprehensible. I could have used the Bible to make the same point: The scoundrel's methods are wicked, he makes up evil schemes to destroy the poor with lies, even when the plea of the needy is just. Isaiah 32:7

How can you consider private property immoral and not dislike it? Or how am I supposed to take the claim that private property is murder, if not as an assertation that it is immoral?

I have sympathy with your general views on wealth transfer however(sorry Dreddnafious!).

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The omission is not as minor as you pretend it to be. Obama spoke of business loans frequently during that speech, mentioning them nearly every time he spoke of consumer loans. Now you're engaging in misrepresentation.

Could you point to a critique that doesn't involve misrepresentation or is that impossible when you arbitrarily parse it to whatever detail you require to make the claim?

Quote:
It makes no difference to my point. You're parroting what you've learned too.

I have a world view based off the subject, not talking points I looked up on a blog. That's the difference.

Quote:
Enjoy the higher taxes on your income.

Please, I can pay roughly any amount of taxes I please pending the amount I'm willing to pay my accountant. This isn't about me.

Quote:
And thus, once again you demonstrate that not only are you completely ideological, you're so wrapped up in your ideology that you can't understand how anyone could possibly think about these matters in ways outside of your ideology.

I'm not sure this qualifies as a debate, but most readers are probably scrathing their heads at some of the stuff you just don't seem to get. I don't think one has to be ideologically driven to wonder if you just have some type of mental blind spot.

Quote:
That takes the cake. Blame the other guy when you fail to substantiate your assertions.

You didn't define "cake", "substantiate", or "assertion". Quit trying to confuse the issue with all of your fancy jargon.

Quote:
I found them wanting. I found you repeating a rule (i.e. productive capacity based on margin isn't grounded by inherent demand) rather than answering the question. And, moreover, rather than show how your rule applied to the statistics from the FRB, you trotted out some contrived fable about the last days of the USSR. You were clearly avoiding the question and still are.

Less, I don't want nor am I willing to parse every item you link on the internet. I answered the "question", I didn't do your busy work.

Quote:
I think you were simply filibustering. I think you weren't sure just what exactly you were trying to say, so you simply piled on the words hoping that something half way coherent would emerge. Seriously, does it take a dozen paragraphs to explain that money and capital aren't necessarily the same thing? That's not on me, that's all on you.

You've demonstrated an almost remarkable ignorance of the topic. Basic, fundamental tenets that both schools of economy employ, basic terminology, basic assumptions. Yes, I did think I needed to spell out in fine detail a scenario to demonstrate my position.

Quote:
If you want to get all moral, wrap your head around the reality that private property is murder. It robs individuals of the basics things they need to live - land, water, air. It robs individuals of their limited time on this earth. And these thefts murder body and mind. If you want to talk up what's morally reprehensible, dig deeper. Dig into the compulsion that would supplant society with the market while claiming that anything less is morally reprehensible.

I address this below in someone elses' post. You and I both know you're not a mutualist. You're too invested in the cheerleading of your left leaning political party of choice to be a radical.

Labor Theory of Value is thoroughly discredit as an economic tool. You desperately cling to some type of moral highground but the fact is that you believe that theft is moral. Your world view is predicated on forcefully taking from people. Whatever trappings and rationalizations you choose to spruce up the core tenet with is immaterial to me.

All semblance of civil liberties, all claims to favor the poor or protecting the weak is just window dressing. It just brutish thuggery with some critical population point that turns a thief into a mob, and then a mob into a majority. At no population point does this absolve you of the immorality.

Quote:
The last three decades of free market based policies have resulted in a massive wealth transfer to the top 1%. To claim that resetting national policies to those that predated such an obscene transfer of wealth, will somehow perpetuate such obscene transfer of wealth, is utterly absurd. The fact is that the rich have gotten extremely fat over the last three decades, in large part because they managed to rewrite the rules to their favor. They're not only ripe for eating, they deserve to be eaten. They didn't share the wealth with those who created it for them. It's time they pay up.

The last 3 decades have been typified by its movement toward a planned and command economy. Each step taken has punished the lower income percentiles and rewarded the wealthy. You want to move forward at a faster clip.

Quote:
So you went through all that to answer a question I asked three posts back and one that you've already adequately answered? And now you're talking about internalizing verbage and avoiding sloppy usage? Please. You're filibustering.

I asked you to clarify the relationship between money and capital, not credit and capital. You responded by claiming that I was using the word "money" in nebulous fashion and that it could mean credit, capital and specie. That was a good step towards clarification, but ultimately, you undermined it by laying out what you see as the difference between credit and capital, with an explanation involving money at every step - money in the bank, money in the bank, money spent to produce, money spent to consume. You laid that all out to better argue that credit doesn't produce wealth, it merely transfers it, in your view from the poor to the rich. It seems to me that behind the argument lurks the fact that the rich hold the wealth and will say whatever they have to say to hold onto their wealth. If you take our wealth, you're not really taking it from us, you're taking it from yourself, so don't go there!

See the handholding post above. When you try to relate this to me personally, or us, because neither of us are in the lower third or likely even the lower 90 percentile of incomes I think you do me a disservice. You think my world view is based on expediency. Were that the case I'd be arguing the Republican line and chowing down at the trough.

I hold my world view because I believe it best serves man, liberally and financially, not because I can't afford an accountant.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
You've demonstrated an almost remarkable ignorance of the topic. Basic, fundamental tenets that both schools of economy employ, basic terminology, basic assumptions. Yes, I did think I needed to spell out in fine detail a scenario to demonstrate my position.

In my view you and LessBread are arguing from different ideological angles. For instance, I think you have a merit in your argument that the current way the economic institutions and the whole economic system have been established has some flaws that should be fixed. It is obvious, there isn't too long from the previous crisis. Furthermore, I don't think you or LessBread disagree on this matter.

I think the real argument between you and LessBread isn't about understanding or not understanding the words or economic jargon, but you are arguing past each other on ideological level. You support Austrian school and by that extension some derivative of night watchman state. From your comments I could imagine that it's not the flavour of which was supported by Alan Greenspan or that the very least the policies of Alan Greenspan didn't fit in the current realities. On the other hand, you seem to support Ayn Rand. Perhaps you are a minarchist?

In any event, for what my thoughts are worth here, ideas of Austrian school of economics aren't without their merits. But you must admit that one of the foundational methods of this school, praxeology, is disputed. One could argue it rationalizes the actions of individual human beings and ignores network effects that are formed in a society that do not necessarily follow from these actions defined between individual people. And in fact, some argue von Mises was a lousy judge of human character and it affects the foundational arguments.

If praxeology is an idea of pondering over possible choices and acting on them, it ignores the fact some choices are already being made and someone is factually making them on behalf of others even if they didn't know them being made. You could argue, for instance, it is because of the current society systems we live in. Raymond Aron, though, tried to combine ideas of modern sociology with praxeology making these ideas once again vaguer to define.

In short, I think, you argue the (U.S.) society is better organized, perhaps, according to a minarhist model. The position LessBread is taking seem to be that currently the (U.S.) society should minimize the effects of this economic situation, even if taxing those who have in order to give to those that have not. And moreover, even in the long term. And yes, you are right, printing money and devaluating the currency, USD, is a massive shift of wealth from the lower income members to the rich. It can be mitigated by raising taxes progressively and providing to the poor, though. Perhaps only temporarily.

In general, if I have understood correctly, LessBread has the idea that if society provides services that could be considered as basic services like education and healthcare, it is to the benefit of the society – making the overall output greater even if it could restrict the output of some.

Also it could argued that these the are the basic services that should be provided to guarantee equality in a society and the best for the people belonging to it. The difference is that those in favour of minimalistic state model usually prefer the idea that rewards should go according to the abilities of the individual members of the society and that is the best of the society. Also, this best of society comes when the individuals can do their informed decisions only based on satisfying their needs. It is, however, difficult to guarantee the foundation these ideas rely on aren't disturbed. Certainly it is true concentrating economic wealth factually gives power to those who have it and it passes on to their kin. Should the other people form a common guard if someone with this concentrated wealth decides to wield it?

Over time this leads to a situation where everyone in a society isn't on equal standing any more. This is in fact a foundational tenet in many ideologies and philosophies based on the idea a society should protect, unquestionably, its weaker members. It also means that everyone can be weak, due to illness or some other catastrophe killing a family, for instance. If a society is so willing, it can collect taxes to fund endeavours that are deemed to be beneficial to the whole of society, perhaps taking from more successful members.

Taxes could be also collected with the idea a society has hired the best of its members to search for the best information and to make difficult decisions that are equal to all and the best for the society. Of course this is a fallacy, as probably many on these boards can readily attest those bureaucrats in Washington are wasting the taxes. Also there is a possibility money is taken from those who have earned it and given to those who are just slacking and do not work to deserve it.

Nordic Countries are more extreme examples. Finland has a population of roughly five million people and this population had decided (voluntarily or just chugging along) that the best way to organise healthcare is that the state collectively collects the funds need to pay the health care industry and bids collectively for all the people. The same goes for education and violence machine to force the decisions and to defend the society from those that are not part of it. Is this the will of the individual people, the representatives chosen by the individual people or an act of a faceless "state"? My guess is that the real argument between you and LessBread lies in this idea.

That is, where does collective freedom begin and individual freedom end. Is economy better organised as suggested by the Austrian school of economics and does it support the individuals the best. Do the numerous people need more fabric to form a society besides the basic rights supported by minarchists. Does accumulating economic power allow the one wielding it exert power over individuals even if basic rights are guaranteed.

These are complex and nebulous ideas and even the experts have difficult time already in recognising what exactly are other expert meaning when they say X model of society. In this sense, the argument between you two isn't proceeding anywhere and you both claim both have ideological blind sides on.

<edit
By basic services I mean all the services the society decides it should support, in addition to healthcare and education I mentioned above. In this economic situation it could be that society decides to save those thousands of people taken from their homes to the streets because of systemic failure of the finance sector. And postpone the action of considering the justification of doing so.

[Edited by - Naurava kulkuri on March 4, 2009 2:27:31 PM]

Quote: Original post by Naurava kulkuri
In my view you and LessBread are arguing from different ideological angles. For instance, I think you have a merit in your argument that the current way the economic institutions and the whole economic system have been established has some flaws that should be fixed. It is obvious, there isn't too long from the previous crisis. Furthermore, I don't think you or LessBread disagree on this matter.

Thank you for the thoughtful post. We do both agree that some change is required certainly. Less is arguing for a better managed monopoly, im arguing for demonopolization, or as near as we can come to it.

Quote:
I think the real argument between you and LessBread isn't about understanding or not understanding the words or economic jargon, but you are arguing past each other on ideological level. You support Austrian school and by that extension some derivative of night watchman state. From your comments I could imagine that it's not the flavour of which was supported by Alan Greenspan or that the very least the policies of Alan Greenspan didn't fit in the current realities. On the other hand, you seem to support Ayn Rand. Perhaps you are a minarchist?

Rand was a hawk on foreign policy so I couldn't associate myself with her. Minarchy is probably a respectable label if I have to claim one. There is no question that Less and I suffer from an ideological divide. [smile]

Quote:
In any event, for what my thoughts are worth here, ideas of Austrian school of economics aren't without their merits. But you must admit that one of the foundational methods of this school, praxeology, is disputed. One could argue it rationalizes the actions of individual human beings and ignores network effects that are formed in a society that do not necessarily follow from these actions defined between individual people. And in fact, some argue von Mises was a lousy judge of human character and it affects the foundational arguments.

Respectfully, the concept of spontaneous order is the predicate for much of Mises' philosophy. That ABCT deals with individual actors as a base doesn't diminish it. As an example, where Keynesianism fails to model the possibility of stagflation, ABCT accounts for it flawlessly. This example is important because it demonstrates the viability of ABCT in the aggregate.

Quote:
If praxeology is an idea of pondering over possible choices and acting on them, it ignores the fact some choices are already being made and someone is factually making them on behalf of others even if they didn't know them being made. You could argue, for instance, it is because of the current society systems we live in. Raymond Aron, though, tried to combine ideas of modern sociology with praxeology making these ideas once again vaguer to define.

So your premise is that human action breaks down at some critical population point?

Quote:
In short, I think, you argue the (U.S.) society is better organized, perhaps, according to a minarhist model. The position LessBread is taking seem to be that currently the (U.S.) society should minimize the effects of this economic situation, even if taxing those who have in order to give to those that have not. And moreover, even in the long term. And yes, you are right, printing money and devaluating the currency, USD, is a massive shift of wealth from the lower income members to the rich. It can be mitigated by raising taxes progressively and providing to the poor, though. Perhaps only temporarily.

In general, if I have understood correctly, LessBread has the idea that if society provides services that could be considered as basic services like education and healthcare, it is to the benefit of the society – making the overall output greater even if it could restrict the output of some.

It seems you are addressing this from a utilitarian standpoint. That is, "Whatever works best". The problem with being a utilitarian is that what works best for the collective may or may not work best for the individual.

There is no such thing as collective rights, except those litigated into existence. For rights to be meaningful each individual must possess the full scope of rights and then whether it is one or 100 million their rights are protected.

When you form a pronoun, and grant them rights that the indivdual components do not possess then you necessarily deprive other individuals of their rights.

So I believe in minority rights, and recognize that the individual is always the minority.

Quote:
Also it could argued that these the are the basic services that should be provided to guarantee equality in a society and the best for the people belonging to it. The difference is that those in favour of minimalistic state model usually prefer the idea that rewards should go according to the abilities of the individual members of the society and that is the best of the society. Also, this best of society comes when the individuals can do their informed decisions only based on satisfying their needs. It is, however, difficult to guarantee the foundation these ideas rely on aren't disturbed. Certainly it is true concentrating economic wealth factually gives power to those who have it and it passes on to their kin. Should the other people form a common guard if someone with this concentrated wealth decides to wield it?

This is a point that Less and I actually agree on. We don't debate it because it quickly becomes an echo chamber.We both agree that the existing system allows the wealthy to infringe on the rights of the destitute. We disagree on how to effect the changes needed to keep this from happening.

Less's solution is regulation, and tax theft to effect equal outcome. My solution is to insure that each individual has a full suite of rights that protect them from predation. My issue with Less's solution is that the problems we currently have are largely caused by lesser implementations of his proposed solution. He wants better management. I want demonopolization.

Quote:
Over time this leads to a situation where everyone in a society isn't on equal standing any more. This is in fact a foundational tenet in many ideologies and philosophies based on the idea a society should protect, unquestionably, its weaker members. It also means that everyone can be weak, due to illness or some other catastrophe killing a family, for instance. If a society is so willing, it can collect taxes to fund endeavours that are deemed to be beneficial to the whole of society, perhaps taking from more successful members.

Let me point out that I don't deem democracy as the highest form of government, it is simply the best we've found thus far. That same mob that joins together to fund a catastophic relief fund could as well vote for selling the organs of the victims. There is nothing inherently moral in democracy, it is mob rule.

No high morale or lofty speech can make taking from one man to give to another against his will anything more than theft. The intention does not come in to play. That said, willingly entering into such an arrangment IS lofty, and does denote a high moral standing.

I have no problem with philanthropy. I am guilty of it myself. But when you rob people of the fruit of their labor you also rob from them their will and means to give to others. Why give to charity when the government has already taken "your part"?

What makes the government more responsive or more competent to provide relief or services than several million individuals working toward that end? And if they possess this remarkable competency why then do charity and relief organizations exist?

Quote:
Taxes could be also collected with the idea a society has hired the best of its members to search for the best information and to make difficult decisions that are equal to all and the best for the society. Of course this is a fallacy, as probably many on these boards can readily attest those bureaucrats in Washington are wasting the taxes. Also there is a possibility money is taken from those who have earned it and given to those who are just slacking and do not work to deserve it.

One can not make this assumption reasonably because government is a monopoly. There's only one over a given geography and it tolerates no competition. Without competition there is no expectation of competance.

Quote:
Nordic Countries are more extreme examples. Finland has a population of roughly five million people and this population had decided (voluntarily or just chugging along) that the best way to organise healthcare is that the state collectively collects the funds need to pay the health care industry and bids collectively for all the people. The same goes for education and violence machine to force the decisions and to defend the society from those that are not part of it. Is this the will of the individual people, the representatives chosen by the individual people or an act of a faceless "state"? My guess is that the real argument between you and LessBread lies in this idea.

You say, "voluntarily or just chugging along" which hides the fact that there really was no such decision to be made. Your government claims sovereignty over its land. Thus, any land you presume to own you actually have a lease on. At any point the government can take your land and claim imminent domain. It further exercises control over how you can dispose of your proerty and what you can do on your property.


Note that the will of the collective and the will of the individual can vary greatly. Just ask the Borg.

Quote:
That is, where does collective freedom begin and individual freedom end. Is economy better organised as suggested by the Austrian school of economics and does it support the individuals the best. Do the numerous people need more fabric to form a society besides the basic rights supported by minarchists. Does accumulating economic power allow the one wielding it exert power over individuals even if basic rights are guaranteed.

The issue is that the concept of collective freedom and individual freedom is incompatible. An individual with a full suite of rights scales to any number of people. A collective with collective rights doesn;t parse down to the individual.

Quote:
These are complex and nebulous ideas and even the experts have difficult time already in recognising what exactly are other expert meaning when they say X model of society. In this sense, the argument between you two isn't proceeding anywhere and you both claim both have ideological blind sides on.

I think Less is engaging in more of a tit for tat. I point out fundamental inconsistencies in his philosophy and he says, "No you" I do enjoy debating him though, it helps me sharpen my philosophy, and occasionally I learn something from him.

Quote: Original post by laeuchli

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by laeuchli

Quote: Original post by LessBread
If you want to get all moral, wrap your head around the reality that private property is murder. It robs individuals of the basics things they need to live - land, water, air. It robs individuals of their limited time on this earth. And these thefts murder body and mind.

Lol. Didnt you spend three pages in one of our previous discusions arguing you were not in fact a communist?

LOL Indeed! I don't recall spending three pages on the subject, but I do recall setting forward some damning criticisms of communism. I'm not a communist. You don't need to be a communist to believe those things. Ever heard of Henry George? If not, check him out. Like Lysander Spooner, he's another great American radical from the 19th century.

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
Up until this point I thought we probably generally agreed on the current economic policy..but I'm at a loss to see how you can square a dislike for private property with support for a liberal system of economics which presuposes private property...surely you dont think Keynes was a communist?

Keynes was not a communist. I don't dislike private property, I dislike assertions that redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor is morally reprehensible. I could have used the Bible to make the same point: The scoundrel's methods are wicked, he makes up evil schemes to destroy the poor with lies, even when the plea of the needy is just. Isaiah 32:7

How can you consider private property immoral and not dislike it? Or how am I supposed to take the claim that private property is murder, if not as an assertation that it is immoral?

I have sympathy with your general views on wealth transfer however(sorry Dreddnafious!).

Hyperbole! Taken to extremes, private property can be seen as making it impossible for people without land to obtain the resources they need to sustain their lives. People subject to that condition don't die immediately, but even if they're able to acquire food and water their lives are shortened considerably. It's indirect murder. I don't dislike private property because society has imposed a host of ameliorating responses that mitigate against that extreme outcome.