Here is a Quote from the Blog of Grant Davies.
"There is no perfect society. There are no perfect people. Critics say that greed is the driving force of capitalism. My answer is that envy is the driving force of socialism. Change to socialism is not an improvement on the imperfections of the current system." - Svetlana Kunin - American Citizen - Russian Immigrant
My Complaint is not Against Capitalism and not Against Socialism, but Against the Extremes of both. There are Problems in Capitalism because of Greed and there are Problems in Socialism because....well, you Know, Envy when Taken too Far is just another form of Greed, yet Envy comes in Degrees and Envying someone who has a Roof Over their Head and Food on their Table is not the Same as Envying someone who has a Large House, Cadillac, Porch, Lincoln Town Car or Corvette, so in this Context, it Seems rather Silly to Speak of someone who has Envy towards another who actually has a House, some Food and some Medicine, as if they are Evil in some way.
In Capitalism, Big Businesses have the Power and in Socialism, the Government has the Power. I Believe in Balancing the Powers. The Answer is in the Middle. The Answer is a Little Bit of Both. The Answer is Compromise. The Answer is to allow the Powers of Free Enterprise (Big Business) and the Powers of Government (Including Benefits to the Poor) to Balance each other Out.
Without the Involvement of the Government, the Poor have no Power at all, and by Poor, I mean the Genetically Challenged. Whether it be Mentally, Emotionally, or anything else, those who Lack the Genetic Ability to Thrive in a Capitalist Society have no Power at all without the Help of the Government and this is the Real Reason why Governmental Programs Exist. It is also Important to Remember that Handicaps come in Degrees and not Everyone who Struggles more then the Others within a Capitalist Society has a Handicap that is Obvious. A Slightly Lower IQ, Low Energy Levels, ADD & ADHD, Depression & Various Emotional Problems, etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
Hi Lista,
I read your post and your points are well taken. But as you might imagine there are a number of places that I think represent some misconceptions about capitalism.
I'm going to get back to you with some answers and some sources that I hope will help to clarify things so that when discussing our philosophies we are both on the same page to start with, at least with regards to definitions and the like.
I suspect we agree on far more than that which seems to divide us.
Best regards
Thanks for Visiting and I am Eager to Hear more of what you have to say.
Lista, please watch the video of Milton Friedman explaining some of the concepts concerning capitalism.
http://whatwethinkandwhy.blogspot.com/2009/03/milton-friedman.html
Also, it is very timely that we are beginning to have this discussion (about what libertarian-ism is and what it is not) because the editor of a blog I write for has just completed a large project on this very topic.
You can find the resource at:
http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/11/100-objections-to-libertarianism-with.html
This post has 100 questions and answers about the freedom philosophy and I would be happy to fill in or clarify any you still have concerns with. It is an excellent place to start if you want to learn the answers to some of your questions. I'd be surprised if you cannot find what you are looking for there. There are many links to other works found among the answers.
Please let me know how it turns out for you. Thanks.
Thanks for the Links, Grant, it will no Doubt Take me some time to Review them.
To the Author of the One I didn't Print. Your Comment is not Offensive, but it is Off Subject. Please Include at Least One Thing about the the Subject of the Post, or at the Very Least, about what is being Discussed in the Comment Thread.
Thank You.
sorry Lista the comments don't seem to be workin right now...Have a great rest of the week!:-)
The Above Comment was not Addressed to you, Angel. If there is a Possibility that I have Missed One of your Comments, I'll Look for it in the Scam File, but not now, cause Unfortunately I have to Go.
Meanwhile, Short General Comments like yours are Ok. There was another Commenter that was on an Entirely New Subject and said more then I wished to Respond to.
Thanks, Angel, for Dropping by. You have a Great Week as well.
I took another Look at the Comment that I did not Print and was getting Ready to Reconsider since the Subject of this Post is not Only Socialism and Libertarianism, but also the Balancing of Extremes and the Subject you chose could be considered an example of an Extreme, yet when I read it again, I realized that there was also a Cuss Word in it and Foul Language has never been my Style.
Listen. You are Welcome here. Truly you are. I'm just asking that you Put forth a Little more Effort to Follow the Rules that I've Posted on the Right. Thank You.
I would object to any correlation between Milton Friedman and Libertarianism.
Friedman was a monetarist.
If you desire economists of the libertarian mold for the sake of understanding I would suggest any/all of the following economists:
Friedrich von Hayek
Ludwig von Mises
Murray Rothbard
Carl Menger
Hey Grant Davies,
Meet a Libertarian that I have Considered to be a little Extreme (That is Far from Center). Apparently, he does not Like Milton Friedman, Possibly too Moderate for his Liking.
Thanks for Dropping by, Soap. Meet a Fellow Libertarian, Grant Davies.
"Apparently, he does not Like Milton Friedman, Possibly too Moderate for his Liking."
You'll need to explain how you've arrived at the conclusion that I do not like Friedman as I merely pointed out that he was a monetarist and not affiliated with the Austrian school of economics which has always been much more closely associated with libertarianism.
What's more, to suggest that my dislike for him would be because he is possibly "too moderate", while fitting into your fixation on an extreme/moderate paradigm, actually is quite lacking in detail or substance.
My disagreements with Friedman are much more complex Lista than the simplification or generalization of asserting that he's "too moderate". There's nothing at all telling in such a statement.
That was Only a Guess, Soap, and that is why I said Apparently and Possibly, rather then Expressing any Certainty. A Guess does not Need to be Detailed because it is only a Guess.
If you Must Know, though, my Guess was based on the Fact that I Find your Ideas to be Quite Far from the Center and I have Never been Secret about the Fact that I Hold that Opinion about your Ideas.
I have also Defined the Word Extreme to Mean nothing more then Far from the Center, so that you will not Take Offense based on some of the Other Less Kind Definitions of the Word, as we have Discussed before.
I do not Mean to Cause you any Offense, Soap. Honest.
Very well.
It's not that I do not like Friedman. I just happen to disagree with the monetarists of which is one. What's more, Friedman is sort of the establishment's libertarian. If you look at the root of the Chicago school of economics from whence Friedman originated, you will find that it isn't really free-market at all. It is merely a variation on the Keynesian model.
Well, you Know What? I Think I'll Start with the Links that Grant Davies has Left and then if you can Think of a Link that you would Like me to Read, then at this Point, I Might Consider it as Part of my Current Study Package, Providing that it is not too Long. I've got another Computer Project going at the Moment, though, so I hope that you will both be Patient. Thank You.
I have a Hunch, though, that I'm going to Like Friedman more then some of the Guys that you are Recommending and I'm Basing that Guess on the Fact that he has already Introduced an Economist to me who, so far, Impresses me, and that is Thomas Sowell.
Also, the Very Fact that you are Claiming that Milton Friedman's Ideas are not Really Free-Market, makes me Wonder if they are more Balanced and Realistic, for I have also made it no Secret that I Think that a Totally Free, Zero Government Assistance and Completely Unregulated Market is quite an Extreme.
If Friedman is Less Extreme, then to me, that is a Positive, not a Negative, and now you have got me Really Curious to the Point that I can't Wait to Finish my Other Project so that I Can look at what Grant Davies has Recommended.
It is at this point that I will be bowing out Lista as I am not want to get wrapped up into the categotical verbiage that you are accustomed to invoking (extreme, mederate, etc.). Sowell would be a good introduction for you. I could make a number of additional suggestions but I'm not going to except to recommend, as I do to anyone delving into economics, Henry Hazlitt's economics in one lesson. Hazlitt was of the Austrian school and the read is concise and a quick short read.
Other than that, I am only going to ask that you show us free-marketers the courtesy of not using the term free-market to describe your middle of the road moderate economic system/theory which, by your admission, is a mixture of capitalism and a hint of socialism. Identifying a combination of the two as free-market ignores Aristotle's fundamental law of identity. That is to say that A is A. An apple is an apple. It cannot be an apple and an orange. It is a fruit. However, it cannot be both a fruit and a vegetable at the sMe time. Similarly, a free-market cannot at the same time be a free-market if you incorporate even a teaspoon worth of government with it.
That 100 objections to libertarianism link is well worth the read as well.
I am Sorry, Soap, that you do not like my "Categorical Verbiage". I'm afraid that sometimes I just can't say things in less words then I do. That which is Far from the Center is Overly Idealistic and simply doesn't Work and that is why I call it Extreme.
I'm Tired and it's Late, so I'm going to come Back and Give you a Longer Response Tomorrow.
When I say your "categorical verbiage" Lista, I am not referring to the word count. What I am referring to is the manner in which you take content, data, issues, subjects and the like and categorize it into left/right/center, workable/extreme, etc. containers.
Presumably anything which doesn't end up getting categorized into the center spectrum (that is to say if it doesn't comport with your comfort zone or biases or preconceived notions) gets shelved only to end up collecting dust.
I don't expect that to change and frankly I don't care if it does as much as I think it deletarious to the mind and the search for knowledge in general.
I didn't Use the Word Count Either. The Definition of the Word Verbiage, though, is "Wordiness" or "Using more Words then are Necessary". If we can not Categorize Things According to what is Workable and what is Extreme, then we can not Evaluate rather or not something is or is not Working. If it doesn't Matter whether or not it Works, then there is no Point in Evaluating or Discussing anything at all.
Compromise is Necessary in Order to Accomplish anything Politically and this is why even if there is an Idea on the Extremities that is Workable, Politically it is not.
Yours is merely one definition of the term. Another is: "the way in which one expresses oneself".
"Compromise is Necessary in Order to Accomplish anything Politically and this is why even if there is an Idea on the Extremities that is Workable, Politically it is not."
I would imagine someone made this same argument to the framers; the founding fathers at the time they proposed their "extremely unworkable" idea to flea the tyranny of King George.
When you convince yourself something is unworkable you fulfill your own prophecy.
Now I'm going to Work on the Comments that you Wrote Yesterday at 4:08 & 4:15 PM. If you Comment in the Mean Time, while I'm Working on my Initial Response, that Comment is just going to have to Wait.
You are Free to "Bow Out" any time that you wish to, Soap.
You don't Like my "Extreme, Moderate Verbiage" Mainly because you do not Believe that Moderation is the Place to be. Rejecting that which is Moderate and Assuming that all Compromise is Evil is just as bad as Assuming and Rejecting that which is Far from the Center.
I'm not going to be going Out and Buying any Books that are Suggested by you because you have not Succeeded at Impressing me. First you have to Convince me that your Ideas are not so Way Out There that they Defy all Logic.
I Read what is Recommended by those who have Succeeded at Impressing me in some way and you have not Accomplished that with me. I am Willing to Read a Recommended Link from you on the Web that is not too Long, but not a Book. I have the Right to Make that Choice without being judged as Lazy by you because you do not Agree with my Reading Priorities. True Freedom is when Decisions can be Made without being Judged by Others for those Decisions.
I don't Actually Use the Term Free-Market very Often. I'm more Likely to say Private Sector, but if I do Use the Term, I do not Like being Limited to Extreme Definitions, at the Exclusion of any form of Levels or Degrees.
We can not Kill, Steal or Rape. That is a Limit to Freedom, so Freedom is not 100%. There are Degrees of Freedom. There are Degrees of Freedom in the Market Place as well. I do not Believe in 100% Purity. To me that is an Idealistic Extreme. I Know that you have a Hard Time Relating to the Way in which I Talk, but I'm afraid that that is just the Way it is.
So, No, I will not be able to Honor your Request that I Only Use Words in the Manner in which you Dictate to me that I should. If you Feel that is Discourteous, so be it.
Even though an Apple is not an Orange and an Orange in not an Apple, this does not Change the Fact that it is Possible to put both Apples and Oranges in the Same Basket. What such an Arrangement is Called is nothing more then a Word Technicality and you and I are all the Time Defining Words Differently because I Like more Leeway then you are usually willing to give me.
I just don't Like being Stuck in Extreme, all or nothing, sort of Definitions. That's too Limiting. It's what I have Labeled Black and White and My Mind just doesn't Work that Way. Sorry, but it just doesn't.
I will Read the 100 Objections to Libertarianism because there is something about the way in which Grant Davies Talks that I can Relate to and so Far, he has earned my Respect. I don't Know what it is about you and I, Soap, yet we just seem to Aggravate each other. I Know the Feeling is Mutual because you have Spoken of Feeling Aggravated by me as well.
I'm sorry that I am not Impressed by you more then I am, Soap. Sometimes that is just the way that it is. I just can not Relate to your Point of View. It's just too Black and White and too Far from the Center.
Response to Soap, Dec. 1, 9:42 AM:
Since you have a Larger Vocabulary then I do, I have no Choice, but to use the Dictionary. I've heard the Word "Verbiage" before, but I wanted to Make sure that I was Understanding it Correctly before I Responded, so I Looked it Up and Unfortunately the Definition that you just gave was not in the Dictionary that I Used. Enough said. Let's Move on.
The Place for Risky Experiments is not the Federal Government. You are Probably going to Agree with that one.
Personally, I would prefer to have a Few Government Protections Against the Tyranny of Unregulated Big Business. The Best Example of this is in relation to the Working Conditions of the Factory Workers earlier in our History. Rules and Regulations have been Added as our History has Progressed and the Reason why is because the Lack of Regulation wasn't Working.
Yes, there is a Limit to how much such Regulation should be Imposed, yet there is also a Limit to the Lack of Regulation.
To Grant Davies, if he is Still Following this Thread:
I've come Across some Confusion over the Definition of Socialism. Some Avid Libertarian/Capitalists seem to Define it as any Government Assistance Program to the Poor. I just thought that I should Clarify that so that you would not Interpret Soap's Words about me Incorrectly...
"Your middle of the road moderate economic system/theory which, by your admission, is a mixture of capitalism and a hint of socialism."
I have very Mixed Feelings, though, about Socialized Medicine.
Like many people tending liberal,
I'm fairly well to do. I'd rather replace 'envy' with 'empathy' regarding how society deals with the less fortunate. Regarding libertarian thought, IMO, it is based on a few thinkers who formed the 'Austrian School' annealed
with the heat of Ayn Rand. Granted, that is shallow of me. But
sort of interested, I checked
what libertarians think is the
most 'libertarian' country:
von Mises Institute: Lichtenstien
CATO Institute: Estonia.
Lichtenstien has a population of
35,000; has more companies than
inhabitants, has not had an army
since 1868, and has been accused of being a tax-dodge (banking even
more secret than Switzerland) haven
for the European Common Market
companies. Lichtenstien is a monarchy...
Estonia has a population of a bit
over 1.2 million. Its population
is shrinking and unemployment is
27% among young people there.
Along the lines of nations of
people, it is perhaps odd that the
happiest are the somewhat socialized (universal healthcare
for sure) Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands. Norway blows us out of the water in terms of income
per capita.
Such comparisons, of course,
reflect many social, cultural,
financial and poltical factors,
but who I am I to argue with the
Institutes von Mises and CATO?
(actually, I have argued with some of the CATO folk by e-mail...they
are incorrigable. :)
..just thinkin out loud here...
Thank You BB,
Your First Couple of Sentences are Perfect. Why didn't I Think of Mentioning the Empathy Idea? And the Rest of your Comment is Quite Interesting.
Almost fifty years ago as a young
chemist in a lab, I accidently poured hydrochloric acid into a
graduate of sodium hydroxide: the
resulting reaction blew the base
of the glass cylinder off. Consider that these two chemicals
represent 'extremes' in the world
of pH, one at pH=0.1, the other at
pH=13.9. Allegorically speaking,
consider that the exothermic neutralization process of mixing
them represents some compromise
or 'center'. After the puff of
angry steam, the very corrosive
hydrochloric acid and the extremely dangerous sodium hydroxide have become....
...table salt and water...and
allegorically the deleterious extremes are 'compromised' into
every day good chemicals. To quote my fellow research dudes at DuPont,
"Better things for better living
through chemistry" :)
I Thought that you weren't Good with Analogies, BB, but that is a Very Good One. So good, In Fact, that I can't Think of a Single Thing to Add.
I would have enjoyed more Discussion on the Other Extreme which is Socialism. The Socialized Medicine in Canada has Received a lot of Criticism because of the Long Wait for certain Treatments. That which is Run by the Government is Generally Less Efficient. BB-Idaho, often mentions Countries other then Canada, such as Finland, the Netherlands and Norway.
I haven't yet heard a Conservative Talk of these Countries and Combat what he has said. Anyone out there want to give it a shot?
RE: "That which is Run by the Government is Generally Less Efficient"
RE: "The Socialized Medicine in Canada has Received a lot of Criticism"
..Effeciency-on average, each US
citizen pays $7100/yr on healthcare: each Canadian pays $3800/yr. Since doctors and nurses
in both countries make about the same amount, we might observe that
the simplicity of single payer vs
the complexity of multiple companies as well as non-profit
vs for profit have something to
do with the huge fiscal discrepencies. 38% of Canadians
are dissatisfied with their healthcare system: 60% of Americans
dislike their system.
50.7 million Americans have no
health insurance. All Canadians are covered. Canadians live on
average 2 years longer than we.
Just looking at the cost/benefit
ratios, it is hard to criticize
our northern neighbors....
..based in part on source 1 2 3
Our Economy is Quite Stressed right now and the Socialists have been Exploiting that Fact as Justification for Adding all sorts of New government Programs, Including Socialized Medicine, but We can't Afford it right now, because of the Huge National Debt.
True, Lista.
Lest it be forgotten, it was the Republicans under George W. Bush that added the socialist Medicare part D (prescription drugs) AND essentially doubled the socialist Department of Education with NCLB. Then of course there were the wars and the expenses therein.
Speaking of socialist, or for that matter, libertarian...now we have the Libertarian National Socicalist Green Party
...oh my.
In my Opinion, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party just don't Mix, BB.
We Ordered a New Printer and I've been sort of Waiting for it to Arrive before Working on my Next Post because I Wanted to Reread the Link that Grant Davies left. I already Scanned through it Once but I sort of wanted to Print it Out and Read it more Thoroughly while Off Line.
Our Current Printer is Out of Ink and the Price of Said Ink has become so High that it is no Longer Acceptable, so we are buying a New Printer with more Reasonable Ink Prices.
So Far, I just Think that some of the Article that Grant Left a Link to represents Typical Libertarian Arguments and some of it represents Arguments that could have been Made by any Republican. I Agree with some of it and Find some of it to be Extreme. And then there are those Parts that are just plan Humorous because they are Nothing more then Responses to the Sort of Name Calling that could have come from anyone from any Party that is into that sort of Name Calling.
Here's my Favorite...
"92. Libertarians are closet secessionists and neo-confederates.
Response:
"If anyone makes this objection to libertarianism, RUN LIKE HELL. Get out of there, before they eat your brains."
lol. That One Made me Laugh. I don't Actually know if Grant Davies is still around, but when I do a Post relating to his Link, I'll go get him and Inform him.
"National Socialist" Green Party is not so far fetched. In 2008, the US Green Party ran a rabid anti-semite as their Presidential candidate. A woman who blamed the Jews for everything, and supported terrorists' efforts to exterminate them.
Dmarks,
Socialism and the Green Party is a Fit because both are in Favor of Regulation. The Part of the Party that BB mentioned that doesn't Fit is the Libertarian Part, for they are Opposed to Environmental Regulation and I Suppose that is why the Party he Mentioned is into Tax Incentives, rather than Regulations.
There is a Contradiction, though, between several of the Points on their Platform, for Tax Incentives or Cuts, #1 & #9, does not Fit with Reduction of Legal Complexity, #4, or at Least not Tax Simplicity, and the Purchasing of Undeveloped Land by the Government, #8, goes against the Libertarian Idea of the Private Ownership of all Land, or at least as much of it as Possible.
#5 is a Little Harsh. That is "Repatriation of non-Germanic Populations". #7 is Vague and Unclear, "Reputable International Politics" and I don't Agree at all with #13, "End Tax-Free Status of Religious Organizations", that is, of Course, unless they are Provided with the Same Tax Incentives for all that they do for their Community, thus Wiping Out their Tax Burdens anyway. That could Work.
Thanks so much for Dropping by.
I just threw that Libertarian National Socialist Green Party
in for the silliness of it. A miniscule splinter group, but
listed as anti-semitic. In our
state we are quite familiar with
various 'white power' organizations. Last summer a
California skinhead with nazi tatoos accosted a black guy in
a Coeur D' Alene bar, told him
to get out of town, followed him
down the street yelling and poked him in the chest. The black guy
decked him with one punch, breaking his jaw. Skinhead has
filed for damages under the hate
crime laws. Odd people around, thankfully not many....
Shaking Head, Confirming the Ridiculousness of the Skinhead.
From the clergy came science and the desire to make education available to all. From the printing press came Bibles. By dint of having access to the Bible the common man learned to read and write. The events of the Reformation were crucial to ending the Ruler-Serf paradigm and allowing for the growing middle class. By what means did this middle class come about? Capitalism!
Capitalism is Biblical because it is a return on your investment. You get paid for hours worked, you get a return on money invested, you receive a return on inventions or songs written or art produced or you start a business and put time, money and effort into building it into a business that will support you and your family.
These are the keys to freedom. Take away Capitalism and bring in Socialism and we soon return to the Rulers-Serfs paradigm again. Guess what? Barack Obama is a multi-millionaire. He'll be fine if the economy goes into the tank. So will his cronies.
Socialism when implemented brings about tyranny and dictatorship. It is all in history for all to see.
I wonder if I should republish a Comment that I made Yesterday that has a rather Silly Typo in it. Yeh. I Think that I will. I didn't Entirely Like how the Comment came Out anyway.
Hi Radar,
Long Time no See or Hear. I hope you had a really good Holiday.
Interestingly, I don't think that I have ever actually Discussed Politics with you. We've mainly just been talking about Darwinism and Creationism, but thanks for being willing to address a Different Subject.
I Basically Agree with what you have said. You are Absolutely Correct and I Thank you for what is a Very Insightful and Historically Informative Comment.
BB-Idaho Likes History, yet Unfortunately it is not my Best Subject. It is really good to hear the Side of History that Favors Capitalism and Free Markets, rather then the Democratic Point of View.
As a Repeat of my Basic Position, Basically, I have Held the Point of View that a Little Capitalism along side of a Few Government Assistance Programs is a good Balance, I still think that it is Good to Avoid the Extremes, but I will tell you this...
If I was to Choose between the Extreme of Socialism and the Extreme of Libertarianism, I would Choose the Later of the two and the Reason Why is because there are People in the Private Sector who have Compassion in their Hearts and the Church is always going to Reach Out to the Poor and Fill some of the Holes that the Government Neglects.
That's all I'm going to say for now. Thanks Radar for Stopping by.
Post a Comment