Socialism and Envy
Ron Allen
> I see envy as the mainspring of socialism.
Ron Allen answers:
Are you a socialist? Do capitalists have envy?
If envy is the mainspring of socialism, then what is the
mainstay of capitalism? Love?
Curt Plumb wrote:
> Envy compels a man to dwell on the success of his neighbor rather
> than setting about to succeed on his own.
Ron Allen answers:
Socialists believe any success that is secured at another's
loss, or at the cost of other people's ruin and undoing is
not true success. I do not envy the material successes of
kleptocratic élites.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"There is not a passion so strongly rooted in the human
heart as envy."
-- Richard Brinsley Sheridan
Carlos Antunes
socialists also believe that they should *prevent* others from being
successful, at gun point, if necessary.
"Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3DDED351...@bellsouth.net...
Ruy Asan
> If envy is the mainspring of socialism, then what is the
> mainstay of capitalism? Love?
the satisfaction of achieving one's personal goals and fullfillment of the
individual's life
> Socialists believe any success that is secured at another's
> loss, or at the cost of other people's ruin and undoing is
> not true success. I do not envy the material successes of
> kleptocratic élites.
A few things:
1) Success is not secured at another's loss - success is achieved as
voluntary exchange. If you are not satisfied with the terms of exchange you
are not obligated to enage in such trade. When you are coerced into going
through a trade then yes, capitalism fails. Keep in mind, objectvists
believe taxation is coercsion - as are subsidies.
2) You cannot use someone's "ruin and undoing" as justification for theft.
If I am starving, and you are not - am I entitled to your food? How much
food? What if as a result you starve, then you come after my food. Talk
about dog eat dog. And if we are to take just enough to share equally - what
if there its not enough? 2 loafs of bread cannot feed 10 people - they can
feed 2. If we divide it up, 10 people die. If those who owned the loafs
originally keep it - 2 people live.
3) If you deicde to share everything anyone makes, why do I bother making
them in the first place? If I make 10 loaves of bread, I have to give away
9, but with no guarantee that I get anythign in return. In socialism, "need"
is sufficient justification to take what I make - in capitalism, nobody is
allowed to take - only to give - and people give usually only when they get
something in return.
Ron Allen
> Socialists believe any success that is secured at another's loss, or
> at the cost of other people's ruin and undoing is not true success.
> I do not envy the material successes of kleptocratic élites.
Carlos Antunes wrote:
> It would be nice if socialists only believed that. The problem is
> that socialists also believe that they should *prevent* others from
> being successful, at gun point, if necessary.
Ron Allen answers:
This is totally fabricated. Socialists are all for success,
unless it has inhuman or immoral costs.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"The free development of each is the condition for the free
development of all."
-- Manifesto of the Communist Party
G*rd*n
| > I see envy as the mainspring of socialism.
How many socialists do you know? How do you know they're
envious, and in what way does their envy connect to their
socialism?
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv't
G*rd*n
| > at the cost of other people's ruin and undoing is not true success.
| > I do not envy the material successes of kleptocratic élites.
Carlos Antunes wrote:
| > It would be nice if socialists only believed that. The problem is
| > that socialists also believe that they should *prevent* others from
| > being successful, at gun point, if necessary.
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net>:
| Ron Allen answers:
| This is totally fabricated. Socialists are all for success,
| unless it has inhuman or immoral costs.
Well, it's not totally fabricated; it's a reflection. The
capitalist State is one in which an elite class dominate all
important activity, especially the businesses, the government,
the academic system, and the means of public communication.
If someone comes along and proposes a more egalitarian
distribution of power, in this case socialism, many capitalism
fans seem to project into this proposal a mirror image of
their own preferred system with, essentially, exactly the same
primary attribute: domination by an elite. So rather than
criticize socialism as it is proposed, which is apparently
an incomprehensible conundrum, they criticize it as a
reflection of what they already know.
Sean P. Burke
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) writes:
There are reasonable arguments why socialism must degenerate
into authoritarianism. To summarize the argument briefly:
1. Socialism requires a political allocation of resources.
Because the components of an economy are interdependent,
you cannot regulate any significant aspect, such as wages,
without extending the planning system to the rest of the
economy as well, and suppressing the "black market".
2. Democratic methods of planning will fail, because such plans
are infinitely complex, and the legislature must balance
many competing interests. In practice, no democratic majority
will ever be found in favor of any specific plan.
3. Therefore, it is inevitably necessary to devolve planning
authority to a central committee, and ultimately to the
chairman of the central committee.
It's not like these and similar arguments haven't been
rehashed here ad nauseum. So why do you bring up these
vapid pseudo-psychological theories?
-SEan
--
"To do good is noble, but to teach others
to do good is nobler, and less trouble." - Mark Twain
Carlos Antunes
>
> This is totally fabricated. Socialists are all for success,
> unless it has inhuman or immoral costs.
>
And what is the criteria for inhuman or immoral?
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
ashley
politic scene and our current extinction rates and
what it means for our near future, with half of all plant
species potentially going out by 2050.
http://www.churchofchomsky.org/coc.htm
it is truly a must read.
good day,
G*rd*n
| > | > Socialists believe any success that is secured at another's loss, or
| > | > at the cost of other people's ruin and undoing is not true success.
| > | > I do not envy the material successes of kleptocratic élites.
Carlos Antunes wrote:
| > | > It would be nice if socialists only believed that. The problem is
| > | > that socialists also believe that they should *prevent* others from
| > | > being successful, at gun point, if necessary.
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net>:
| > | Ron Allen answers:
| > | This is totally fabricated. Socialists are all for success,
| > | unless it has inhuman or immoral costs.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) writes:
| > Well, it's not totally fabricated; it's a reflection. The
| > capitalist State is one in which an elite class dominate all
| > important activity, especially the businesses, the government,
| > the academic system, and the means of public communication.
| > If someone comes along and proposes a more egalitarian
| > distribution of power, in this case socialism, many capitalism
| > fans seem to project into this proposal a mirror image of
| > their own preferred system with, essentially, exactly the same
| > primary attribute: domination by an elite. So rather than
| > criticize socialism as it is proposed, which is apparently
| > an incomprehensible conundrum, they criticize it as a
| > reflection of what they already know.
sbu...@dev0.welkyn.com (Sean P. Burke):
| There are reasonable arguments why socialism must degenerate
| into authoritarianism. To summarize the argument briefly:
|
| 1. Socialism requires a political allocation of resources.
| Because the components of an economy are interdependent,
| you cannot regulate any significant aspect, such as wages,
| without extending the planning system to the rest of the
| economy as well, and suppressing the "black market".
|
| 2. Democratic methods of planning will fail, because such plans
| are infinitely complex, and the legislature must balance
| many competing interests. In practice, no democratic majority
| will ever be found in favor of any specific plan.
|
| 3. Therefore, it is inevitably necessary to devolve planning
| authority to a central committee, and ultimately to the
| chairman of the central committee.
|
| It's not like these and similar arguments haven't been
| rehashed here ad nauseum. So why do you bring up these
| vapid pseudo-psychological theories?
Because they're sonewhat incorrect? First of all, your first
sentence should read "socialism must degenerate into capitalism",
because that is what we most often observe on the level of
nation-states.* As to some of the other points: the idea of
socialism is the ownership or control of the means of production
by the workers or the people in general, as opposed to an
elite minority. Nothing else is specified. One could, for
instance, have a socialist economy with markets. Point 2 is
incorrect; there is no requirement that plans be perfect in
a democracy, any more than there is for any other political
arrangement. Point 3 reflects a problem which also exists in
capitalism -- centralization of power -- so I don't think it
can be assigned specifically to socialism.
In general, you've projected capitalism into a nominally-
socialist unknown, as I said above. The intuition may be
correct, but it hasn't been demonstrated from the ideas of
socialism or from observation. If the theory given above
were entirely correct, for instance, then every commune
or cooperative should sell itself out and become a normal
capitalist enterprise within a few years -- but this is not
what we observe.
If you want to attack socialism, I think you have to start
by attacking its central idea, equality, which means
constructing an argument in favor of inequality, authority,
and so on. Of course you could say that it was not
egalitarian enough, but that would be an argument from the
Left which I would not expect from capitalism fans.
--
*Some people will not agree that any nation-states have ever
been socialistic, or that any state can ever be socialistic,
etc. However, I am using _socialism_ broadly to include any
system that fits the definition.
Constantinople
>Ron Allen:
>| > Socialists believe any success that is secured at another's loss, or
>| > at the cost of other people's ruin and undoing is not true success.
>| > I do not envy the material successes of kleptocratic élites.
>
>Carlos Antunes wrote:
>| > It would be nice if socialists only believed that. The problem is
>| > that socialists also believe that they should *prevent* others from
>| > being successful, at gun point, if necessary.
>
>Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net>:
>| Ron Allen answers:
>| This is totally fabricated. Socialists are all for success,
>| unless it has inhuman or immoral costs.
>
>Well, it's not totally fabricated; it's a reflection. The
>capitalist State is one in which an elite class dominate all
>important activity, especially the businesses, the government,
>the academic system, and the means of public communication.
>If someone comes along and proposes a more egalitarian
>distribution of power, in this case socialism, many capitalism
>fans seem to project into this proposal a mirror image of
>their own preferred system with, essentially, exactly the same
>primary attribute: domination by an elite.
The explanation is much more simple. We are aware of the track record
of actual socialism.
>So rather than
>criticize socialism as it is proposed, which is apparently
>an incomprehensible conundrum, they criticize it as a
>reflection of what they already know.
What they already know is the record of socialist experiements.
Capitalism is not dominated by an elite. Because we have choice, we
are not dominated. Socialists seek to deprive us of choice. If they
were to succeed in that effort, then we would become dominated by an
elite. Frequently socialists characterize choice as frivolous: who
needs so many brands of cereal? Or, as one socialist recently
complained:
Polonius Manque:
:: Do we really need, say, 57 different "kinds" of toilet paper
:: made by 5 companies?
In contrast to private enterprise, which provides goods on an
individual basis to individually willing customers, socialists
generally, these days, make the claim that the economy should be
controlled by democratically elected representatives. But democratic
choice is not individual choice. For example, judging by their
attitude, socialists did not individually choose Bush, and yet they
have to live with him as the President of the US. A democratically
elected elite is still an elite.
So in that way, too, socialists seek to place an elite over us, and to
give them greater power than the state currently has.
Constantinople
>Ron Allen:
>| > Socialists believe any success that is secured at another's loss, or
>| > at the cost of other people's ruin and undoing is not true success.
>| > I do not envy the material successes of kleptocratic élites.
>
>Carlos Antunes wrote:
>| > It would be nice if socialists only believed that. The problem is
>| > that socialists also believe that they should *prevent* others from
>| > being successful, at gun point, if necessary.
>
>Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net>:
>| Ron Allen answers:
>| This is totally fabricated. Socialists are all for success,
>| unless it has inhuman or immoral costs.
>
>Well, it's not totally fabricated; it's a reflection. The
>capitalist State is one in which an elite class dominate all
>important activity, especially the businesses, the government,
>the academic system, and the means of public communication.
>If someone comes along and proposes a more egalitarian
>distribution of power, in this case socialism, many capitalism
>fans seem to project into this proposal a mirror image of
>their own preferred system with, essentially, exactly the same
>primary attribute: domination by an elite.
The explanation is much more simple. We are aware of the track record
of actual socialism.
>So rather than
>criticize socialism as it is proposed, which is apparently
>an incomprehensible conundrum, they criticize it as a
>reflection of what they already know.
What they already know is the record of socialist experiements.
Constantinople
Capitalism is an economy in which no one has the authority to control
the economic activity of others. The more laissez-faire an economy
becomes, the greater becomes the capitalist element. Capitalism is
therefore the opposite of authoritarian.
>because that is what we most often observe on the level of
>nation-states.* As to some of the other points: the idea of
>socialism is the ownership or control of the means of production
>by the workers or the people in general, as opposed to an
>elite minority. Nothing else is specified.
When we criticize socialists, we criticize their myriad specific
claims, their myriad specific and not so specific proposals, and their
track record. By seeking to limit criticism of socialism and
socialists to criticism of the above one sentence, you are telling us,
in essence, "ignore what I say, ignore what other socialists say, and
ignore the track record of socialism". But you give us no good reason
to do that.
You frequently complain about the common dictionary definition of
capitalism, making the point that what matters is the real thing (what
you call actual existent capitalism), not the definition. But when it
comes to socialism, you want us to ignore the track record of the real
thing, and you want us to ignore the volumes of material written by
socialists, and instead focus only on the definition. If capitalism's
definition isn't good enough for you, then why is the odd definition
of socialism good enough for us?
>If you want to attack socialism, I think you have to start
>by attacking its central idea, equality,
No, you don't. You can start by attacking the historical track record
of socialism. Or you can start by attacking the erroneous economic
theories employed by socialists. Or you can start by questioning the
factual assertions of socialists about the real world.
Ian
> Curt Plumb wrote:
> > I see envy as the mainspring of socialism.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Are you a socialist? Do capitalists have envy?
>
> If envy is the mainspring of socialism, then what is the
> mainstay of capitalism? Love?
>
>
> Curt Plumb wrote:
> > Envy compels a man to dwell on the success of his neighbor rather
> > than setting about to succeed on his own.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Socialists believe any success that is secured at another's
> loss,
ALL success (in materialist or economic terms) is secured at another's loss.
Resources are limited and that which is gained by one is that which was not
gained by others but could have been.
> or at the cost of other people's ruin and undoing is
> not true success. I do not envy the material successes of
> kleptocratic élites.
All possible systems of economics are in a sense "kleptocratic" because
resources are always limited. Communism/capitalism/socialism are all just
different systems at distributing finite resources. In all these systems
people lose and people gain, the only difference is how these gains and
losses are spread amongst different individuals.
mikel
> "Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3DDED351...@bellsouth.net...
> > Curt Plumb wrote:
> > > I see envy as the mainspring of socialism.
> >
> > Ron Allen answers:
> > Are you a socialist? Do capitalists have envy?
> >
> > If envy is the mainspring of socialism, then what is the
> > mainstay of capitalism? Love?
> >
> >
> > Curt Plumb wrote:
> > > Envy compels a man to dwell on the success of his neighbor rather
> > > than setting about to succeed on his own.
> >
> > Ron Allen answers:
> > Socialists believe any success that is secured at another's
> > loss,
>
> ALL success (in materialist or economic terms) is secured at another's loss.
> Resources are limited and that which is gained by one is that which was not
> gained by others but could have been.
Not true. Suppose I have an apple, but what I really like is
peaches. Suppose you have a peach, but what you really like is
apples. I can give you my apple in return for your peach. Now we are
both better off, though the quantity of resources has not changed.
Resources are finite, but one arrangement of resources is not as good
as another; by rearranging them people can be made better off. If all
parties to an agreement to rearrange resources participate
voluntarily, there is a large chance that all will be made better off
because they will agree to a rearrangement only if they expect to be
better off.
Improvements made in this fashion are in principle unbounded, though
resources are finite.
Ian
> "Ian" <i...@nospam.com> writes:
>
> > "Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:3DDED351...@bellsouth.net...
> > > Curt Plumb wrote:
> > > > I see envy as the mainspring of socialism.
> > >
> > > Ron Allen answers:
> > > Are you a socialist? Do capitalists have envy?
> > >
> > > If envy is the mainspring of socialism, then what is the
> > > mainstay of capitalism? Love?
> > >
> > >
> > > Curt Plumb wrote:
> > > > Envy compels a man to dwell on the success of his neighbor rather
> > > > than setting about to succeed on his own.
> > >
> > > Ron Allen answers:
> > > Socialists believe any success that is secured at another's
> > > loss,
> >
> > ALL success (in materialist or economic terms) is secured at another's
loss.
> > Resources are limited and that which is gained by one is that which was
not
> > gained by others but could have been.
>
> Not true. Suppose I have an apple, but what I really like is
> peaches. Suppose you have a peach, but what you really like is
> apples. I can give you my apple in return for your peach. Now we are
> both better off, though the quantity of resources has not changed.
I agree with this and don't beleive that it contradicts what I said. That
different individuals value different resources with different worth does
not imply that the gain of a resource by one does not prevent the
opportunity of gain by the other. One would have to assume that the apple
was totally worthless to everyone in the world but me for this to hold. In
fact there will be others who want the apple more than I do and others who
want it less. None of this destroys the thrust of what I was saying at all.
>
> Resources are finite, but one arrangement of resources is not as good
> as another; by rearranging them people can be made better off.
This was not what I was arguing against and is a different, albeit valid,
point.
> If all
> parties to an agreement to rearrange resources participate
> voluntarily, there is a large chance that all will be made better off
> because they will agree to a rearrangement only if they expect to be
> better off.
An arrangement of resources according to any set of rules results in the
loss of resources to one at the expense of others. That those who lose those
resources have agreed to suffer the loss does not alter the fact that they
lost them.
mikel
That is quite true; in fact, your consumption of the apple not only
deprives someone else of the apple, it also deprives you of something
other than the apple--in this case the peach, at least. In economics
this relinquishment of one opportunity in favor of another is called
'opportunity cost'; all costs are actually opportunity costs.
On the one hand wealth can increase without bound because one person
may always exchange something with another to the benefit of both. On
the other hand, no matter what, everything we do and everything we
have has a cost--an opportunity cost--because we cannot choose one
thing without giving up another.
James A. Donald
> distribution of power, in this case socialism
But you are not proposing a more egalitarian distribution of
power, you are proposing the standard recently existent
totalitarian terror state, only with people as good, wise, and
benevolent as G*rd*n himself allotting production quotas and
consumption rations.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
rP5bMRBWMWlIh/TUtyL1f6xaCOSW73eX/yGaDps3
4PRTpIkasK2zFjDBJ//w+71obSTIlYsrEmPD6KM3u
Carlos Antunes
news:3UND9.7986$dz2.1099533@stones...
>
> ALL success (in materialist or economic terms) is secured at another's
loss.
> Resources are limited and that which is gained by one is that which was
not
> gained by others but could have been.
>
This is obviously bullshit. This would assume the economy is a zero sum
game, something the economy is not. I suggest you familiarize yourself with
a very simple concept, that of CREATION OF WEALTH. Then come back to learn
more.
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
James A. Donald
G*rd*n:
> > > someone comes along and proposes a more egalitarian>
> > > distribution of power, in this case socialism
Sean P. Burke:
> > There are reasonable arguments why socialism must
> > degenerate into authoritarianism. To summarize the argument
> > briefly:
> >
> > 1. Socialism requires a political allocation of resources.
> > [....]
G*rd*n:
> the idea of socialism is the ownership or control of the
> means of production by the workers or the people in general,
> as opposed to an elite minority. Nothing else is specified.
You are saying that you should be judged on the wondeful
niceness of your good intentions, not on the likely
consequences of those good intentions.
That is an implicit admission that all your good intentions are
a load of hot air -- you have no real interest in putting your
wonderfully good intentions into practice, you intend murder,
tyranny, and slavery, but since your ultimate intentions are so
very very very good, that is fine and virtuous, even if you
know full well there is no likelyhood of ever putting your fine
intentions into practice.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
W8cPnL5Xsvfgcg7y9tT2Pd8NtbqTcv/tOIAmRzeL
47g9tiDtjL+JiwwoY89uIn+dgY8oxBF52OPQuWPj6
Jesse Nowells
On 23 Nov 2002, G*rd*n wrote:
> One could, for instance, have a socialist economy with markets.
So doesn't that line up with their opinion that socialism "degenerates"
into capitalism? & aren't these people really talking about communism
rather than socialism in general?
> Point 3 reflects a problem which also exists in capitalism --
> centralization of power -- so I don't think it can be assigned
> specifically to socialism.
*Concentration*, not centralization.
> If you want to attack socialism, I think you have to start by
> attacking its central idea, equality, which means constructing an
> argument in favor of inequality, authority, and so on.
Why should they go for the center when they can attack a weak flank?
Jesse Nowells
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Constantinople wrote:
> We are aware of the track record of actual socialism.
& we are aware of the track record of actual capitalism. So there you go.
> Capitalism is not dominated by an elite.
In the real world, there are elites & they do dominate.
> Because we have choice, we are not dominated.
We have limited choices & if we choose not to go along with the economic
system, we will inevitably be at war with it. You can't just build a shack
anywhere & start growing food.
> In contrast to private enterprise, which provides goods on an
> individual basis to individually willing customers, ...
Enterprise makes mass appeals & promotes demands where the distinction
between needs & wants get blurred. There is no special Constantinople
division in all these companies producing goods just to supply you on an
"individual basis".
mikel
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Constantinople wrote:
>
> > We are aware of the track record of actual socialism.
>
> & we are aware of the track record of actual capitalism.
Apparently not.
> > Capitalism is not dominated by an elite.
>
> In the real world, there are elites & they do dominate.
Which is not to say that capitalism is dominated by an elite.
> > Because we have choice, we are not dominated.
>
> We have limited choices & if we choose not to go along with the economic
> system, we will inevitably be at war with it. You can't just build a shack
> anywhere & start growing food.
We will have limited choices for all time regardless of what anyone
does. You can indeed just build a shack and start grwoing food -- not
just anywhere, but somewhere -- and choices are limited
nevertheless. The fact of limits on choice is therefore not a
criticism of capitalism. In order to criticize it on those grounds you
must identify particular limits and show that they would be removed
under some alternative to capitalism and show that no more onerous
ones would appear in their place.
> > In contrast to private enterprise, which provides goods on an
> > individual basis to individually willing customers, ...
>
> Enterprise makes mass appeals & promotes demands where the distinction
> between needs & wants get blurred.
The distinction between needs and wants iss intrinsically
blurred. Enterprise makes mass appeals where that succeeds and
individual appeals where that succeeds. It drives ever toward both
increasing its ability to satisfy mass demands and increasing its
ability to satisfy idiosyncratic demands.
Sean P. Burke
Jesse Nowells <jnow...@transbay.net> writes:
> On 23 Nov 2002, G*rd*n wrote:
>
> > One could, for instance, have a socialist economy with markets.
>
> So doesn't that line up with their opinion that socialism "degenerates"
> into capitalism? & aren't these people really talking about communism
> rather than socialism in general?
The argument is that socialism degenerates into authoritarianism.
People in socialist/authoritarian economies, such as the USSR and
Eastern Europe, and China, have recently decided that they would
prefer the prosperity and liberty that obtains in the capitalist
economies. I call that reform, not degeneration.
> > Point 3 reflects a problem which also exists in capitalism --
> > centralization of power -- so I don't think it can be assigned
> > specifically to socialism.
>
> *Concentration*, not centralization.
Typical socialist word game - let's confuse wealth with power,
so that simpletons will believe that they intend to take "power"
away from corporations, instead of giving power to the state.
> > If you want to attack socialism, I think you have to start by
> > attacking its central idea, equality, which means constructing an
> > argument in favor of inequality, authority, and so on.
Quite to the contrary, it is the socialist who must
inevitably resort to authority in order to enforce
his idea of "equality".
> Why should they go for the center when they can attack a weak flank?
If you think that socialism produces "equality", then perhaps
you can explain the meaning of the Russion word "nomenklatura".
Or, educate me - explain the crucial difference between
socialism and communism. I'll listen, albeit skeptically.
James A. Donald
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 12:02:24 -0800, Jesse Nowells
<jnow...@transbay.net> wrote:
> So doesn't that line up with their opinion that socialism
> "degenerates" into capitalism? & aren't these people really
> talking about communism rather than socialism in general?
Dictionary says that socialism is collective ownership and
administration of the means of production and distribution of
goods
This requires dictatorship and terror for the reasons explained
earlier in this thread by Sean P. Burke in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=82adk0l...@dev0.welkyn
.com
And also many times in many threads by myself and many others.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
ara9HrgGK0DIUXp1hocYiPvo9A0v82lNjYHEw95S
4z/zo0iphnKQGaYXky+6WtdC1uTd6WXwHrauHRzbR
Jesse Nowells
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, James A. Donald wrote:
> Dictionary says that socialism is collective ownership and
> administration of the means of production and distribution of
> goods
> This requires dictatorship and terror ...
How is that any different from the predominating capitalist system for
*most* people, if you're so concerned with dictatorship & terror?
mikel
Seems pretty different to me. Why don't you describe for us the
dictatorship and terror you've experienced in a capitalist country so
that we may understand your definitions of 'capitalist',
'dictatorship', and 'terror'.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > Dictionary says that socialism is collective ownership and
> > administration of the means of production and distribution
> > of goods
> >
> > This requires dictatorship and terror ...
Jesse Nowells
> How is that any different from the predominating capitalist
> system for *most* people, if you're so concerned with
> dictatorship & terror?
Ah, the moral equivalence argument. The USA is supposedly the
same as Stalin's Soviet Union.
Don't be silly.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
pBjBrU97UAZHhh/2mp+fClcNn0UXsOnBJtZrrqyQ
4Seoy2Uvq5e+Wx/c1/dgD6Ek+utymIpBkNfdcpcVW
Ron Allen
> Socialists are all for success, unless it has inhuman or immoral costs.
Carlos Antunes wrote:
> And what is the criteria for inhuman or immoral?
Ron Allen answers:
I do not believe the principles and norms of moral humanism
are all that controversial.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the
plaintiff."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero
Ron Allen
> Socialists believe any success that is secured at another's loss, or
> at the cost of other people's ruin and undoing is not true success.
> I do not envy the material successes of kleptocratic élites.
Carlos Antunes wrote:
> It would be nice if socialists only believed that. The problem is
> that socialists also believe that they should *prevent* others from
> being successful, at gun point, if necessary.
Ron Allen wrote:
> This is totally fabricated. Socialists are all for success, unless
> it has inhuman or immoral costs.
G*rd*n wrote:
> Well, it's not totally fabricated; it's a reflection. The capitalist
> State is one in which an elite class dominate all important activity,
> especially the businesses, the government, the academic system, and
> the means of public communication. If someone comes along and proposes
> a more egalitarian distribution of power, in this case socialism, many
> capitalism fans seem to project into this proposal a mirror image of
> their own preferred system with, essentially, exactly the same primary
> attribute: domination by an elite. So rather than criticize socialism
> as it is proposed, which is apparently an incomprehensible conundrum,
> they criticize it as a reflection of what they already know.
Ron Allen answers:
Well written and very true.
I've noticed that the philosophical capitalists keep coming
up with socialist problems that duplicate problems existing
in capitalism, as if these problems would be far more of a
destructive blow to socialism than to capitalism. They are
imputing capitalist problems to socialism, and telling us
that socialism cannot succeed because of these problems.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"The true wealth of capitalists consists in the number of
wage workers they hire and have, in the toil and industry
of their productive employees."
-- Ron Allen
Jesse Nowells
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Sean P. Burke wrote:
>> *Concentration*, not centralization.
> Typical socialist word game - let's confuse wealth with power,
Centralization in itself doesn't signify anything. Any organization
takes a degree of centralization. Concentration signifies where this power
is located, not how it's organized.
> so that simpletons will believe that they intend to take "power"
> away from corporations, instead of giving power to the state.
... as oppose to the "simpletons" who want the state to stop protecting
the people from corporate exploitation altogether & allow the corporations
to run roughshod over everybody with the state not only not interferring
but giving greater assistance to corporate agendas ...
> Quite to the contrary, it is the socialist who must inevitably resort
> to authority in order to enforce his idea of "equality".
Enforcement is an invariant factor of any kind of governance.
Sean P. Burke
Jesse Nowells <jnow...@transbay.net> writes:
The big difference is body counts: ~60 million for Stalin,
possibly more for Mao, no one has reliable figures. Then
there's Pol Pot, but he was a retail operation by comparison.
I suppose to a socialist, trivial things like mass graves
just aren't a significant difference.
Jesse Nowells
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Sean P. Burke wrote:
>>> Dictionary says that socialism is collective ownership and
>>> administration of the means of production and distribution of
>>> goods ...
>>> This requires dictatorship and terror ...
>> How is that any different from the predominating capitalist system for
>> *most* people, if you're so concerned with dictatorship & terror?
> The big difference is body counts: ~60 million for Stalin, possibly
> more for Mao, no one has reliable figures. Then there's Pol Pot, but
> he was a retail operation by comparison. I suppose to a socialist,
> trivial things like mass graves just aren't a significant difference.
It doesn't follow that because you can refer to communist mass murderers
that there are no capitalist mass-murderers. In terms of billions of
people the capitalist system results in:
[from www.globalissues.org]
Half the world -- nearly three billion people -- live on less than two
dollars a day.
The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter
of the world's countries) is less than the wealth of the world's three
richest people combined. 2
Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or
sign their names.
Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was
needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't
happen.
51 percent of the world's 100 hundred wealthiest bodies are corporations.
The wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of
any industrialized nation.
The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are
being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor
received any of the money.
20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the worlds
goods.
The top fifth of the world's people in the richest countries enjoy 82% of
the expanding export trade and 68% of foreign direct investment -- the
bottom fifth, barely more than 1%.
In 1960, the 20% of the world's people in the richest countries had 30
times the income of the poorest 20% -- in 1997, 74 times as much.
An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and
poorest countries was about :
3 to 1 in 1820
11 to 1 in 1913
35 to 1 in 1950
44 to 1 in 1973
72 to 1 in 1992
"The lives of 1.7 million children will be needlessly lost this year
[2000] because world governments have failed to reduce poverty levels"
The developing world now spends $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it
receives in grants.
A few hundred millionaires now own as much wealth as the world's poorest
2.5 billion people.
"The 48 poorest countries account for less than 0.4 per cent of global
exports."
"The combined wealth of the world's 200 richest people hit $1 trillion in
1999; the combined incomes of the 582 million people living in the 43
least developed countries is $146 billion."
"Of all human rights failures today, those in economic and social areas
affect by far the larger number and are the most widespread across the
world's nations and large numbers of people."
"Approximately 790 million people in the developing world are still
chronically undernourished, almost two-thirds of whom reside in Asia and
the Pacific"
"7 Million children die each year as a result of the debt crisis. 8525038
children have died since the start of the year 2000 [as of March 24,
2001]."
For economic growth and almost all of the other indicators, the last 20 years [of the current form of
globalization, from 1980 - 2000] have shown a very clear decline in progress as compared with the
previous two decades [1960 - 1980]. For each indicator, countries were divided into five roughly equal
groups, according to what level the countries had achieved by the start of the period (1960 or 1980).
Among the findings:
Growth: The fall in economic growth rates was most pronounced and across
the board for all groups or countries.
Life Expectancy: Progress in life expectancy was also reduced for 4 out of
the 5 groups of countries, with the exception of the highest group (life
expectancy 69-76 years).
Infant and Child Mortality: Progress in reducing infant mortality was also
considerably slower during the period of globalization (1980-1998) than
over the previous two decades.
Education and literacy: Progress in education also slowed during the
period of globalization.
"Today, across the world, 1.3 billion people live on less than one dollar
a day; 3 billion live on under two dollars a day; 1.3 billion have no
access to clean water; 3 billion have no access to sanitation; 2 billion
have no access to electricity."
The richest 50 million people in Europe and North America have the same
income as 2.7 billion poor people. "The slice of the cake taken by 1% is
the same size as that handed to the poorest 57%."
The world's 497 billionaires in 2001 registered a combined wealth of $1.54
trillion, well over the combined gross national products of all the
nations of sub-Saharan Africa ($929.3 billion) or those of the oil-rich
regions of the Middle East and North Africa ($1.34 trillion). It is also
greater than the combined incomes of the poorest half of humanity.
A mere 12 percent of the world's population uses 85 percent of its water,
and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World.
James A. Donald
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 22:03:54 -0800, Jesse Nowells
<jnow...@transbay.net> wrote:
> Centralization in itself doesn't signify anything. Any
> organization takes a degree of centralization. Concentration
> signifies where this power is located, not how it's
> organized.
When everything is subject to a single plan, and thus a single
will, this is a concentration of power unimaginable in
capitalism. Socialism is inherently totalitarian, and
totalitarianism inherently terrorist.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Ugk5lKPbSMn5vxTGar8TPBXBZ0FzvdiSGxOrDQpQ
4m+CW92OR516281XZ+yWNeDD7yrkPAnztqvVa1Cs3
James A. Donald
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 01:52:47 -0800, Jesse Nowells
<jnow...@transbay.net> wrote:
> It doesn't follow that because you can refer to communist
> mass murderers that there are no capitalist mass-murderers.
> In terms of billions of people the capitalist system results
> in:
>
> [from www.globalissues.org]
>
> Half the world -- nearly three billion people -- live on less
> than two dollars a day.
Odd that the poorest are those that practice capitalism the
least.
You glibly say the world has a world capitalist system, as if a
secret cabal of capitalists ruled the whole world, and then say
that everything that is bad everywere is a consequence of the
will of this secret cabal, though the poorest countries, for
example India, did not practice capitalism until recently.
Those countries that were open to trade and respectful of
private property rights in the means of production, for example
Hong Kong rapidly joined the first world, or, like Chile, are
swiftly drawing close to joining it.
Argentina was first world when in practiced capitalism,
collapsed to third world when it raised trade barriers and
launched massive government interference in private control of
the means of production.
We have seen many countries go from third world to first world,
and two go from first world to third world.
Those that industrialized, industrialized in the capitalist
path, in the same path pioneered by Britain. Those that
collapsed, Argentina and Cuba, abandoned the capitalist path.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
PHIUn/NydjPhYq/wMiEtzu3+ZSRVLlDLrGMzJr29
4/FQ2Yfeax0/L9pfNgP4mAYcT2GGES6bdGfRJnZiI
Carlos Antunes
>
> I do not believe the principles and norms of moral humanism
> are all that controversial.
>
I have no idea whether they are controversial or not until you tell me what
they are.
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
James A. Donald
Carlos Antunes wrote:
> > And what is the criteria for inhuman or immoral?
>
Ron Allen answers:
> I do not believe the principles and norms of moral humanism
> are all that controversial.
Among normal people, probably not, but you see tyranny and
slavery where most people see voluntary exchange, and see
freedom, equality, and justice, where most people see slavery
and terror.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
CYpRRiHFTm2p5M1UVoOEe7Ojx3CA9tc6itNukG4G
46+8oDRvw6tTtypc/MNq+jBMjDhKWCOymyWf7Gwrx
Sean P. Burke
Jesse Nowells <jnow...@transbay.net> writes:
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Sean P. Burke wrote:
>
> >>> Dictionary says that socialism is collective ownership and
> >>> administration of the means of production and distribution of
> >>> goods ...
> >>> This requires dictatorship and terror ...
>
> >> How is that any different from the predominating capitalist system for
> >> *most* people, if you're so concerned with dictatorship & terror?
>
> > The big difference is body counts: ~60 million for Stalin, possibly
> > more for Mao, no one has reliable figures. Then there's Pol Pot, but
> > he was a retail operation by comparison. I suppose to a socialist,
> > trivial things like mass graves just aren't a significant difference.
>
> It doesn't follow that because you can refer to communist mass murderers
> that there are no capitalist mass-murderers. In terms of billions of
> people the capitalist system results in:
Then please cite those capitalist mass-murderers. And let's
try to stick to real murder please, e.g. mass graves containing
thousands of skulls, each with a single bullet hole in the back,
as are still being discovered throughout the territory of the
former USSR.
Jesse Nowells
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, James A. Donald wrote:
> > It doesn't follow that because you can refer to communist
> > mass murderers that there are no capitalist mass-murderers.
> > In terms of billions of people the capitalist system results
> > in:
> > [from www.globalissues.org]
>> Half the world -- nearly three billion people -- live on less
>> than two dollars a day.
> Odd that the poorest are those that practice capitalism the least.
The poorest don't make macroeconmic policy.
> You glibly say the world has a world capitalist system, ...
It's evidently the case.
> as if a secret cabal of capitalists ruled the whole world,
Nobody said anything about any secret cabals.
> Argentina was first world when in practiced capitalism,
> collapsed to third world when it raised trade barriers and
> launched massive government interference in private control of
> the means of production.
These assertions belie the facts.
[www.zmag.org/content/Economy/cibils0120.cfm]
Argentina: The demise of neoliberal economics?
by Alan Cibils
January 20, 2002
The explosive events of mid December 2001 that toppled two presidents and
left 30 dead in Argentina represent the culmination and logical outcome of
almost 26 years of neoliberal economic policies. The common demand among the
looters, the looted, and most of the middle classes was that the economic
regime had to change.
People also said "Enough!" to politics as usual, corruption, and
clientelism. Colorful chants peppered with plenty of insults were directed
at finance minister Domingo Cavallo, then-president Fernando De la Rúa,
ex-president Carlos Menem, the Supreme Court, and the entire political
class.
Neoliberalism takes root in Argentina: 1976-1999
Absent from most media coverage, however, was the massive looting of
Argentina's wealth and assets, the product of 25 years of neoliberal
policies.
The country's neoliberal experiment began on March 24, 1976 when the most
brutal dictatorship in Argentina's 20th century history came to power
through a military coup. The military's economic policy reversed decades of
protectionist development policies aimed at industrialization and developing
the internal market.
The main contributions of the military government to neoliberalism were the
partial opening of goods markets to trade, (causing many local enterprises
to go bankrupt), the opening of capital markets giving rise to the
prominence of international financial speculation in Argentina, and brutal
repression of what was a militant and organized labor force, leaving 30,000
"disappeared" and wiping out a generation of activists.
The dictatorship ended in economic, social, and military disaster (remember
the Falklands/Malvinas war?). The country's industrial capacity had shrunk
by 30 percent and capital flight had dramatically increased Argentina's
foreign debt. To make matters worse, income distribution had become highly
unequal, leading to the disappearance of much of Argentina's middle class.
Civilian Raúl Alfonsín came to power in 1983 and tried to reverse the
military's neoliberal policies. While initially successful, support for
Alfonsín's plan began to erode when both labor and capital found themselves
with declining real income. After several increasingly orthodox
adjustments, the economic situation once again became unmanageable.
Argentina's foreign debt spiraled out of control, capital flight resumed,
and increasing hostility from the international financial institutions
created a chaotic domestic situation that forced Alfonsín to hold elections
and leave office five months early.
Carlos Menem, the candidate of the historically pro-labor Peronist party,
came to power in 1989. While he had campaigned on traditional populist
themes, once in power he made a 180-degree turn towards neoliberal
fundamentalism. After a year and a half of macroeconomic instability and two
bouts of hyperinflation, Menem named Domingo Cavallo, a Harvard-trained
economist, as finance minister.
With Menem's full backing and under the guidance of the IMF, Cavallo
implemented the most far-reaching structural adjustment program in Argentine
history. He effected an immediate and radical opening of Argentina's goods
markets to trade, an opening of capital markets to unrestricted foreign
capital inflows, and privatization of all state enterprises.
The cornerstone of Cavallo's policy package was a currency board system that
pegged the Argentine peso to the US dollar on a one to one exchange rate.
While this initially helped to curb inflation, as the dollar strengthened
vis-a-vis other currencies, Argentina became increasingly unable to export.
Menem's ten years in office resulted in a radical restructuring of
Argentina's economy and society. Abrupt trade liberalization bankrupted much
domestic industry and production, turning Argentina into a primary product
and service economy.
Privatization of state enterprises was taken to ridiculous levels: mail
services, airports, the rail system, social security, the national oil
company, and all utilities were sold, often at laughable prices. State
monopolies were transferred to the private sector, resulting in the
remittance of extraordinary profits to company headquarters abroad.
Massive inflows of foreign capital to Argentina in the early 1990s fueled a
boom in consumer credit, which in turn resulted in a large increase in
consumer demand and positive growth rates from 1991 to 1994.
However, the December 1994 Mexican peso crisis resulted in massive capital
outflows, which caused a strong recession in 1995 with unemployment reaching
a record 18.4 percent. The tequila effect, as it came to be known,
underscored the central structural flaw of Argentina's neoliberal
experiment: the economy's dependence on foreign capital which could leave
the country at vertiginous speeds.
The Asian, Russian, Brazilian and Turkish financial crisis of the late-1990s
all had substantial repercussions in Argentina. Growth rates were erratic
after 1994, and unemployment never dropped below 13 percent. Furthermore,
inequality reached unprecedented levels, as did the number of Argentines
living below the poverty line.
1999: Enter De la Rúa
Fernando De la Rúa, the conservative presidential candidate of the
center-left Alianza coalition, won the 1999 election. He soon thereafter
pulled a Menem: he deliberately and blatantly betrayed any progressive
campaign promises and subserviently catered to the IMF and international
financial capital establishment.
However, there was an important difference between De la Rúa and his
predecessor: Menem had the smarts to channel enough cash to the indigent
poor to hold their number more or less constant throughout his ten years in
power (roughly 2.9 million). De la Rúa did no such thing, and by the time
massive protests ejected him from office two years later, Argentina had 5.7
million indigent poor.
De la Rúa's economic strategy was to administer the economy he inherited
according to IMF austerity guidelines. According to the IMF, when Argentina
brought its government expenditures under control (i.e. reduced already
dangerously low social expenditures) and reduced its fiscal deficit to zero,
foreign capital would flow back into the country.
As any student of introductory macroeconomics could predict, such
fiscal austerity policies-worsened Argentina's two-year recession. Argentina
was thus caught in a downward spiral of falling growth and government
income, larger deficits, more austerity, and so on.
When in March, 2001 it became obvious that the economic strategy was not
working, De la Rúa brought back Menem's finance minister, Cavallo, who made
a last ditch effort to save Argentina from disaster.
Cavallo continued with the brutal austerity and adjustment policies of his
predecessor. The recession progressively worsened with each of several
adjustment packages in the second half of 2001. Domestic investors lost
confidence in the economy, and began withdrawing bank deposits en masse. In
order to halt the run on deposits, Cavallo issued a decree on December 1,
2001 known as the "corralito", (or little corral) limiting cash bank
withdrawals to $250 a week.
The "corralito" affected the whole social spectrum. Given Argentina's
recession and high unemployment (currently estimated to be at least 20
percent), informal sector and "under the table" employment is substantial.
All of this operates exclusively with cash. Furthermore, most middle class
people pay for rent, condo fees, domestic help, and children's schooling
with cash. Bank lines grew long and people's frustration mounted.
The December Crisis
The first sign that Argentina was about to explode came on Wednesday,
December 12 with an ill-publicized call for a "cacerolazo" (a form of
protest where people take to the streets banging pots and pans, or
"cacerolas") by a small merchants association. What was supposed to last
15 minutes turned into a deafening half hour long cacerolazo. Everyone
involved was surprised at the extent of the protest, although those in
power barely acknowledged it.
A second dramatic indication of people's discontent came on December 14-17,
when the Frente Nacional Contra la Pobreza (FRENAPO, National Front Against
Poverty, a broad coalition of groups of unemployed, progressive labor, human
rights, and small business organizations) held a national consultation, run
exclusively by volunteers, on whether the government should implement a
subsidy to all unemployed heads of household.
More than 3 million people voted "Yes" to the proposal--- more votes than
the Peronists, the most successful party, got in the October 14 midterm
election.
When poor residents of the city of Rosario started looting supermarkets on
December 18, many analysts remembered the looting (in the exact same
neighborhood) that eventually led to the fall of Alfonsín in 1989.
Throughout the night of December 18th and on December 19th looting spread to
other cities and many Buenos Aires suburbs. Images of poor people looting
supermarkets and durable goods stores filled Argentine TV and made their way
around the world.
At 10:45 p.m. on December 19, President De la Rúa went on national TV. In
his short speech he declared a national state of siege, and condemned
opportunistic and violent looting (real but minor), showing a profound lack
of understanding for the very real needs of millions of Argentines.
The president's speech hadn't ended when clanging saucepans were heard
throughout the city. By midnight there were thousands of people in the
streets banging pots and pans, shouting colorful chants and insults at
Cavallo, the economic model, De la Rúa, and Menem, in that order.
Spontaneously people started marching to four congregating points: the
finance minister's private residence on swanky Libertador Avenue, the
president's residence in Olivos (a suburb on the northern side of the
capital), Plaza de Mayo (the meeting place of many historically significant
demonstrations), and Congress.
Crowds swelled, calmly if noisily demanding an end to neoliberalism and
political corruption. By 1:20 a.m. on December 20th, the finance minister
had resigned.
Peaceful protests continued through the night and the following day in spite
of the most brutal police repression in decades, which left five dead
downtown. By 7:30 p.m., when it became clear that the Peronists would not
come to De la Rúa's rescue, the president resigned. Argentines were
ecstatic. Spontaneous, massive mobilizations had caused a hated regime to
fall.
De la Rúa's resignation caught the splintered opposition off guard. The
Peronists had at least six presidential aspirants, none of whom were willing
to set personal political aspirations aside for the national good.
Furthermore, initially Peronists grossly misunderstood the popular mood and
the message of the popular uprising and "cacerolazo". This became clear with
the way the first interim president, Adolfo Rodríguez Saá, conducted office
and by his appointment of several corrupt Menem-era officials as cabinet
members.
Argentines again poured into the streets, this time protesting corruption
and the banking restrictions still in place. The old popular belief about
Peronists, "roban pero hacen" (they steal, but at least they do something)
appeared to no longer hold. When the most important Peronist governors
failed to support him, Rodríguez Saá was forced to resign after only a week
in office.
What next?
After much internal party wrangling, Peronists nominated Eduardo Duhalde,
then senator for Buenos Aires province, to complete the term of De la Rúa,
who soundly defeated in the 1999 presidential elections. He had also been
Menem's first vice-president and governor of Buenos Aires province after
that, with many allegations of corruption and drug trafficking. Still,
according to Peronist congressmen, he was the best they had to offer.
Duhalde declared that the old marriage of government and finance capital was
over, he upheld the default on foreign debt, and chose to break the
decade-long peg of the peso to the dollar, first converting rent contracts,
utility fees, and some dollar debts, to pesos.
Has neoliberalism died in Argentina? While it has clearly been given a
crippling blow, and a change of economic model is badly needed, there are
still worrisome signs. First, the government continues to maintain the
politics-business alliance as the main force behind economic policymaking.
This is precisely what people in the street were clamoring against. As long
as foreign banks, privatized utilities, and oil conglomerates have direct
access to government, it will be politics as usual at the expense of the
basic needs of the poor and indigent Argentines.
While it is true that the Duhalde government is structurally weak due to its
transitory nature, it might benefit from changing the power axis to
politicians-people, leaving the business lobbies out and really changing the
economic model.
Second, a currency devaluation does not constitute a break with
neoliberalism. Income redistribution and domestic market reactivation
policies are fundamental to address the high level of concentration and
inequality which have resulted from ten years of neoliberalism.
Furthermore, some form of capital control should also be implemented as a
way of preventing the massive capital flight, mostly by banks, large
corporations, and wealthy individuals, which has taken place over the last
year.
Finally, while the government has explicitly stated that it upholds the
public debt default declared by Rodríguez Saá, it still looks for IMF
approval. Since the IMF is to blame for Argentina's current disaster, it is
hard to visualize how it could be a part of the solution to the country's
problems.
However, there are signs of hope. People have become aware of their power
and it is unlikely that they will passively put up with more hardships.
Furthermore, in many towns and cities people are holding neighborhood
councils to discuss the situation, make proposals, and hold local
politicians accountable.
There is also a growing, progressive opposition, which did very well in the
October mid-term elections. They could become a real contender in the 2003
elections, or if the Duhalde administration falls and early elections
result. In a very real sense, history is still being written.
Ron Allen
> I do not believe the principles and norms of moral humanism are all
> that controversial.
Carlos Antunes wrote:
> I have no idea whether they are controversial or not until you tell
> me what they are.
Ron Allen answers:
You seem to want to debate it. I'm willing to read what you
have to say on the matter, and respond if and when I deem a
response is warranted. I simply do not feel a need to take
the initiative, to do the work, when I assume or perceive
no controversy.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"A peace which depends upon fear is nothing but a suppressed
war."
-- Henry David Thoreau
Carlos Antunes
>
> You seem to want to debate it. I'm willing to read what you
> have to say on the matter, and respond if and when I deem a
> response is warranted. I simply do not feel a need to take
> the initiative, to do the work, when I assume or perceive
> no controversy.
>
Ok, I'll take the initiative, then.
My starting point is: freedom is an essential right; any other rights are
only corolaries; anything not compatible with this principle is immoral and
should be illegal.
Given the above, the following is immoral and should be illegal:
- Welfare
- Social security
- Income taxes
- Universal healthcare
- Restrictions on speech
- Restrictions on consumption of certain chemicals
- Restrictions on certain sexual activities when performed by consenting
adults
The list goes on.
Obviously, if one starts with a different assumption, one gets different
results. I am curious to know what your starting point is.
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
G*rd*n
"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.>:
| Ok, I'll take the initiative, then.
|
| My starting point is: freedom is an essential right; any other rights are
| only corolaries; anything not compatible with this principle is immoral and
| should be illegal.
|
| Given the above, the following is immoral and should be illegal:
|
| - Welfare
| - Social security
| - Income taxes
| - Universal healthcare
| - Restrictions on speech
| - Restrictions on consumption of certain chemicals
| - Restrictions on certain sexual activities when performed by consenting
| adults
|
| The list goes on.
It seems inconsistent. First of all, war, military organization,
police power and the like are noticeable by their absence from
your list and their presence in the world as it is. The
implication is that you approve, or at least condone, State
agencies to carry on such activites. However, these agencies
are usually very expensive and require a good deal of taxation
to support them, suppression of dissent, and so forth. In
fact, Bismarck found that his imperial plans required a high
level of Welfare and State education (another expensive item
missing from your list), so one might see these expenditures
as indirectly related to militarism. If you do, indeed, reject
military and police power and spending, then it's hard to
understand why they weren't placed at the top of the list,
since they're much more expensive and intrusive than anything
else listed.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv't
G*rd*n
| > One could, for instance, have a socialist economy with markets.
Jesse Nowells <jnow...@transbay.net>:
| So doesn't that line up with their opinion that socialism "degenerates"
| into capitalism? & aren't these people really talking about communism
| rather than socialism in general?
As far as I know, no one is this thread has been talking
about communism, unless by implication. "The ownership of
the means of production by the workers or by the people in
general" doesn't say or imply anything about communism,
unless you want to say that the principle prohibits the
formation of capital markets (but I don't think it does).
The socialist principle of equality is rather restricted.
G*rd*n wrote:
| > Point 3 reflects a problem which also exists in capitalism --
| > centralization of power -- so I don't think it can be assigned
| > specifically to socialism.
Jesse Nowells <jnow...@transbay.net>:
| *Concentration*, not centralization.
I think centralization goes along with that -- the rich tend
to get richer, the powerful more powerful. Because of the
tendency, various capitalist communities have enacted anti-
monopoly laws, so I must not be the only person to have
noticed it.
G*rd*n wrote:
| > If you want to attack socialism, I think you have to start by
| > attacking its central idea, equality, which means constructing an
| > argument in favor of inequality, authority, and so on.
Jesse Nowells <jnow...@transbay.net>:
| Why should they go for the center when they can attack a weak flank?
I'm assuming an inquiry into the nature of the things, not a
debating contest.
Constantinople
<jnow...@transbay.net> wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, James A. Donald wrote:
>
>> > It doesn't follow that because you can refer to communist
>> > mass murderers that there are no capitalist mass-murderers.
>> > In terms of billions of people the capitalist system results
>> > in:
>
>> > [from www.globalissues.org]
>
>>> Half the world -- nearly three billion people -- live on less
>>> than two dollars a day.
>
>> Odd that the poorest are those that practice capitalism the least.
>
>The poorest don't make macroeconmic policy.
Capitalism is not defined by macroeconomic policy.
>> You glibly say the world has a world capitalist system, ...
>
>It's evidently the case.
The only way you indicate how this can be "evident" to you is if you
define capitalism as macroeconomic policy.
>> as if a secret cabal of capitalists ruled the whole world,
>
>Nobody said anything about any secret cabals.
>
>> Argentina was first world when in practiced capitalism,
>> collapsed to third world when it raised trade barriers and
>> launched massive government interference in private control of
>> the means of production.
>
>These assertions belie the facts.
>
>[www.zmag.org/content/Economy/cibils0120.cfm]
Oh, you found something in Z Magazine that agrees with you. Then you
must be right.
Michael Voytinsky
news:e5cE9.154324$E54.8...@news1.east.cox.net...
> My starting point is: freedom is an essential right; any other rights are
> only corolaries; anything not compatible with this principle is immoral
and
> should be illegal.
Could you clarify as to what you mean by "freedom". It is a word that is
frequently used by rarely, if ever, defined. Libertarians, communists,
political religious movements all claim to promote the cause of "freedom".
This makes me think that without a definition, it is a meaningless word -
since it means very different things to different people.
Cheers
M
Dana
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:arrjgt$jph$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> | ...
>
> "Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.>:
> | Ok, I'll take the initiative, then.
> |
> | My starting point is: freedom is an essential right; any other rights
are
> | only corolaries; anything not compatible with this principle is immoral
and
> | should be illegal.
> |
> | Given the above, the following is immoral and should be illegal:
> |
> | - Welfare
> | - Social security
> | - Income taxes
> | - Universal healthcare
> | - Restrictions on speech
> | - Restrictions on consumption of certain chemicals
> | - Restrictions on certain sexual activities when performed by consenting
> | adults
> |
> | The list goes on.
>
> It seems inconsistent.
No not at all.
> First of all, war, military organization,
> police power
Protect the country from foreign invasion and threats, hence man being what
he is, there will always be a need for a military and police powers.
> and the like are noticeable by their absence from
> your list and their presence in the world as it is. The
> implication is that you approve, or at least condone, State
> agencies to carry on such activites.
Yes to protect my country which enables me to live as a free person, well
yes such agencies are needed.
> However, these agencies
> are usually very expensive and require a good deal of taxation
> to support them,
Not nearly as much as the left wants to spend on unconstitutional social
programs.
> suppression of dissent, and so forth
Not here.
Carlos Antunes
news:qugE9.159864$oRV.1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> Could you clarify as to what you mean by "freedom". It is a word that is
> frequently used by rarely, if ever, defined. Libertarians, communists,
> political religious movements all claim to promote the cause of "freedom".
> This makes me think that without a definition, it is a meaningless word -
> since it means very different things to different people.
>
Freedom: one can do whatever he or she wants except preventing others from
doing the same.
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
Carlos Antunes
> police power and the like are noticeable by their absence from
> your list and their presence in the world as it is. The
> implication is that you approve, or at least condone, State
> agencies to carry on such activites.
>
People's rights need to somehow be protected both from internal and external
agressors. Governments are instituted by the people for this reason.
>
> However, these agencies are usually very expensive and require
> a good deal of taxation to support them, suppression of dissent,
> and so forth.
>
I don't oppose taxation of unearned income. Taxation on the use/comsumption
of natural resources not only seem reasonable but are fair.
>
> In fact, Bismarck found that his imperial plans required a high
> level of Welfare and State education
>
State education is on my list, too.
The list I presented wasn't all-inclusive. Was meant as an example.
Basically, if there something that requires agression to exist, it is on the
list. And agression is forcing people to do what they don't want to do,
i.e., violating their freedom of choice.
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
Constantinople
Political freedom mainly means freedom from your state. And that means that
your state recognizes and submits to the fact that it does not have any
special right to do anything that your next door neighbor has no right to
do, or that you have no right to do to him. Of course, no state acts
entirely like an ordinary private individual, but some states act more this
way than others.
Jesse Nowells
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Constantinople wrote:
> >The poorest don't make macroeconmic policy.
> Capitalism is not defined by macroeconomic policy.
Poor people do not determine the policy of whole systems that are applied
to them & in which they are induce to operate within. The poorest people
do not make economic policy & they don't determine what the predomiated
economic system is. Poverty is often the result of people having
capitalism practiced on them, not a lack of "practice" on their part.
> Oh, you found something in Z Magazine that agrees with you. Then you
> must be right.
So you don't like the messenger. I don't like you. Who cares?
[www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Disasters_Neolib_Argen.html]
Disasters of Neoliberalism Argentina in flames
CovertAction Quarterly, Spring 2002
Argentina is on the horns of a triple dilemma-social, political and
systemic. The social dilemma is that, while anarchy is no solution, outrage
is the only logical response to an economic system so unjust that it is
destroying the fabric of society. The political dilemma is that the
Argentine people have been sold out to the global market predators by their
own ruling class, which has made itself obscenely rich off the suffering of
the great majority. The systemic dilemma is that today's neoliberal economic
model isn't working, but the power holders claim it is the only option,
although it promises no hope for the future.
To understand how Argentine politicians have sought a way out of the extreme
crisis facing the nation-in light of the social explosion December 19-20,
2001, in which police repression caused at least 25 deaths and a large
number of wounded-it is important to analyze the different political
positions that have emerged. On the one hand, those politicians who follow
the Peronist line-conservative although still populist-adjusted to the
discipline of the majority in Congress and voted for candidates determined
by top party leadership. On the other hand, those following new political
coalitions-center-left workers and the rebellious middle-class- responded to
the explosive social events of the moment out of self-interest by backing
their party militants.
Since its institutionalization during the presidencies of Juan Peron
(1946-55, 1973-74), the Peronist party has sought and obtained power through
clever demagogic appeals to the popular masses. At first, tangible
social-democratic reforms in labor, education and welfare did help Argentine
workers make significant gains, but Peronism has always primarily benefited
the upper classes, today associated with the large corporations. Carlos Saul
Menem (president 1989-2000 and hoping to return to office) is a Peronist, as
is the current president, Eduardo Duhalde. Peronism today makes the same
populist appeals, but has nothing to offer the average Argentinian.
In this context, two opposing positions have emerged. One is held by
Graciela Fernandez Meijide, leader of a group named Frepaso-an alliance of
Peronists and socialists-who, after the withdrawal of President Fernando de
la Rua, backed Duhalde who sought to prevent the country from falling into a
state of anarchy. Challenging that position, deputy Elisa Carrio-leader of
ARI, an alliance of trade unionists and Peronists-proposed following the
constitutional rules which called for electing a new president.
During the presidency of de la Rua (December 1999-December 2001), the
government announced that it had neither financial resources nor foreign
credit to pay the next installment of the foreign debt that was about to
come due. Facing default, Argentina would thus fall into bankruptcy. While a
judicial request to declare bankruptcy is a solution corporations can employ
when they face a state of insolvency, no such proviso applies to bankrupt
nations.
When President Fernando de la Rua resigned his post on December 21, 2001,
the presidency fell to Ramon Puerta, President of the Senate. The
Legislative Assembly (Chamber of Deputies and Senators) did not follow the
process established by the Constitution for calling new elections. Instead,
the two major political parties, which had the vote majority, proceeded to
manipulate the political situation outside the Congress, orchestrating
hidden agreements. As a result, they designated Adolfo Rodriguez Saa,
Governor from the Province of San Luis, as President, who should have called
for immediate presidential elections.
When they installed him in the presidency, however, they made it clear he
would not be a provisional president, but would remain in power until 2003
with no new election. Saa made several promises: to raise the minimum salary
from $400 to $500 a month; to not pay the foreign debt; to accept requests
for the extradition to foreign countries of those military leaders from the
old dictatorship judged guilty of the disappearance of many thousands of
people during the "Dirty War" (19761983); and to publicly receive the
Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, who requested he free all those detained by
the police during the protests initiated against President de la Rua, which
Saa promised he would do. However, since there was insufficient support from
the Peronist governors in the most important provinces, he resigned his post
after one week without fulfilling any of these promises.
The designations of Saa of Duhalde as president had no parliamentary
legitimacy. In both cases, the Legislative Assembly operated as an
autonomous body making decisions beyond its powers. The opposition group,
Frepaso, failed to take any clear position or to back any alternative, for
fear of losing their posts prior to any popular elections. Luis Zamora, a
socialist deputy, denounced the whole Legislative Assembly as a fraud
because it didn't represent the people who had mobilized the mass protests.
PRIVATIZATION, DEREGULATION, GLOBALIZATION, BANKRUPTCY
These four themes frame the parameters of the financial crisis behind the
desperate social situation that has fallen upon Argentina. The historical
context for such crises in the free market economies of the Americas first
appeared in Mexico, developing during the presidency of Carlos Salinas de
Gortari (1988-94) and marked by the collapse of the Mexican stock market in
December 1994. This happened at the same time the indigenous Zapatista
rebellion in Chiapas was challenging the corruption and lies that cloaked
the newly imposed neoliberal model called NAFTA. A total Mexican collapse
was avoided through a $50 billion bailout orchestrated by President Bill
Clinton, as the only way to avoid a complete disaster and save the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Now, Argentina is the second crisis.
It developed in Argentina during the government of Menem, although the
actual collapse occurred in December 2001 under de la Rua, it has submerged
the people in disaster and emptied the nation's bank accounts. The cases of
Mexico and Argentina are both examples of Robin Hood in reverse: the poor
are robbed to pay the rich.
In relation to the emptying of the bank deposits, Carlos Heller, Vice
President of the Association of Public and Private Banks of the Republic of
Argentina, said:
...in order to reestablish the people's confidence in the banks, they have
to explain where the money is and who took more than $20 billion out of the
country during the last days just before the crisis exploded-money the
system doesn't have-and which caused the collapse; and to expose the guilty,
those rich capitalists whose money flows in and out of the country at will.
A report from the Central Bank of Argentina confirmed the fact that in the
month of November 2001, $4.9 billion were withdrawn from the nation's banks.
Those rich depositors who had more than
$250,000 in the bank withdrew 47.4% of their money, whereas the
small depositors who had up to $10,000 were allowed to withdraw
only 9% of their funds.
The withholding of bank deposits, that is, prohibiting people from
withdrawing their `` savings-called "corralito"-a creation of ' the Minister
of the Economy, Domingo Cavallo, was a measure taken on December 1, 2001, in
the face of the massive withdrawal of money by the biggest depositors. Most
of the money belonging to small depositors still remains inaccessible to
them.
The most recent data from the Central Bank reveal that 98% of all depositors
had their deposits blocked, that is, those with
$50,000 or less in their accounts, whereas this restriction only
affected 0.21% of the major accounts of more than $250,000. As
a result of emptying the banks of these huge deposits and referring
to this "blocking" invention of Cavallo, President Duhalde
said: "the corralito is like a bomb, if it explodes no one
is left with a single peso." In other words, a situation
in which anyone who has a bank account loses everything.
The main standard-bearers of this neoliberal system in Latin America were
Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Carlos Salinas de Gortari in Mexico, Carlos Saul
Menem in Argentina, Carlos Andres Perez in Venezuela and Alberto Fujimori in
Peru. Each of these cases resulted in such financial disasters for their
societies that three of these leaders were arrested-Menem, Perez and
Pinochet-and two of them fled into exile-de Gortari and Fujimori. Ronald
Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were the commanders who are still unpunished.
In Argentina, the program of privatization was initiated by President Menem
in 1989. This strategy, based upon a macroeconomic theory, has as its goal
the corporate takeover of the finances of the State, both its public
spending potential and its operating budget. While market theory talks about
"greater efficiency" and "social benefits," its real goal is the
deregulation of the national economy. It accomplishes this by demanding the
privatization of the country's major industries, thus reducing the State's
income and then having foreign companies take over-privatize-the principal
industries which control the primary services of the society: gas,
electricity, telecommunications, water and sanitary services.
In Argentina, this neoliberal economic model took off in 1990, focusing on
the laws related to the de-monopolization of public services by the State:
state reform, monetary regulation and the law of convertibility, by which
the Argentine peso abandoned the gold standard and made the U.S. dollar its
base. The primary objective of Domingo Cavallo, then Minister of the
Economy, was to undermine the nation's sovereignty, by integrating
Argentina's economy into that of the United States. The Minister of Foreign
Relations for Argentina, Guido Di Tella, defined these bilateral ties with
the US as "carnal relationships."
As a result, Argentina's national sovereignty-its political autonomy and its
economic independence-was subjugated to the global capitalist system. The
Argentine social security system was privatized through establishing
agreements for depositing the funds with, and transferring the
administration to, foreign financial corporations.
The income received from the sale of the State's patrimony over its national
industries was either insignificant or wasted without the government
revealing any clarifying accounting data, so the public believed the
transfer had been a good deal for Argentina. To the contrary, as if by
magic, the nation's entire inheritance, accumulated over generations through
the labor of its people, disappeared overnight. The system of public
administration was dominated by corruption, based upon a system of
artificial justice and weakened by excessive expenditures manipulated by the
presidency behind a veil of traitorous silence that will take future
historians years to investigate and uncover.
When the government of Isabel Peron fell in 1976, the foreign debt of
Argentina was calculated at $7.5 billion; by 2001 its debt had reached
$142.3 billion, while the interest owed between 1992 and 2001 amounted to
$83.2 billion. In 1990, monetary parity between the peso and the dollar was
fixed. Thus, the money supply is controlled by the amount of reserves in
dollars in the Central Bank. In order to pay its bills, the State borrows
more foreign money instead of increasing the money supply or using funds
from the income of the nation's production.
This system of outside financing, which while successful in controlling
hyper-inflation during the Alfonsin government, was completely abused during
Menem's administration, created a new crisis resulting from corruption at
high levels: the squandering of presidential expenses, excessively high
salaries paid congressional members and government employees, the widely
accepted practice of not paying taxes and a corrupt judicial system which
refused to investigate any of these illicit activities. All these factors
turned the national fiscal deficit into a chronic foreign debt that finally
became unpayable and led to default.
These economic crimes not only reduced the flow of income to the State but
produced such extreme illicit wealth that it created a hidden economy that
was so huge it equaled the official economy. In time, the international
agencies which control the public accounts of the State- the IMF and World
Bank-made public the gravity of this fiscal evasion. According to
FIEL-Fundacidn de Investigaciones Econdmicas Latinoamericanas-this hidden
economy or fraudulent financing, rose to $64 billion annually.
Examining the paradox of the foreign debt, Raul Dellatore
has written:
Over the past twelve years, two Argentine governments favored the payment of
foreign debt over any other political objective. The consequence of this
policy so evident today is a nation whose economy consumes itself in order
to end all other means of debt repayment with a debt many times higher than
at the beginning of the military dictatorship (1976). Paradoxically only
days after the explosion which ended that model, the country entered another
cul-de-sac: resolving its commitments to the financial system by freezing
its dollar accounts worth $46.4 billion and its peso accounts worth $16.4
billion.
MILITARY RULE AND STATE TERRORISM
Despite the health of the Argentine economy after World War II under its
independent and protectionist policies, domestic political fears and US
continental policies led the country into military rule and eventually state
terrorism. These continental policies developed out of the United States'
Cold War policy and its anti-communist propaganda as well as the rise of
leftist movements in Latin America. Although President Arturo Frondizi
(1958-1962) had cordial relations with President John F. Kennedy, he opposed
the idea of taking precipitous measures against Cuba, opting for an
independent solution to that dilemma. This provided an opening for the
military, which accused Frondizi of being soft on communism and the
Peronists, and thus "deliberately orchestrated a coup against the Argentine
president."
In June 1966, the military overthrew President Arturo Illia, claiming his
government wasn't adjusting to the new definition of domestic and
international objectives (i.e., the "national security state"), and replaced
him with General Juan C. Ongania who took charge of a dictatorial presidency
with unlimited powers. The military, filled with excessive arrogance,
declared that everything the civilian administrators had been incapable of
doing-ending the escalation of inflation, reversing the declining economic
development and preventing labor unrest-could be accomplished through a
military regime. A broad sector of the political elite, business class,
reactionary elements of the Catholic Church (Opus Dei) and groups of
intellectuals welcomed Ongania's ascendancy to power.
Even though popular mobilizations and a fraction of the big capitalists
withdrew their support from Ongania in 1969, ushering in the return to power
by Juan Peron in 1973, the economic situation rapidly deteriorated. This led
to the rise of the Montoneros, leftist students and Peronists, who clashed
with right-wing groups and para-police resulting in 700 deaths. In 1975, the
cost of living escalated by 335% and demonstrations were frequent. On March
24, 1976, a military junta, led by General Jorge Rafael Videla, took power.
He dissolved the Congress, imposed martial law and governed by executive
decree. In response to street clashes, the government launched its own
counter-attacks, which Argentines refer to as state terrorism.
In 1987, the Argentine Human Rights Commission denounced the activities of
the military and its "Dirty War" before the International Human Rights
Commission in Geneva, accusing it of having committed 2,300 political
assassinations, making 10,000 arrests for political reasons and
'disappearing' between 20,000 and 30,000 persons, many assassinated or
buried in unknown graves. During this reign of terror, the Videla government
imposed a rigid economic plan that initiated a period of "easy money" [plata
dulce] in which the national currency and corporate assets were overvalued,
facilitating sumptuous spending abroad. Thus, between unlimited terror
inside the country and unlimited spending abroad, between the concentration
of income in a few hands and the enormous impoverishment of the poor
majorities, life in Argentina was a dream for the few, but a nightmare for
most.
The most visible result of this poverty/profligacy phenomenon was the fall
of the "new poor" from the middle class. Between 1976 and 1983, 30% of the
population lost its class status and today live on incomes of less than $125
a month. Through the intervention of Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz, Economic
Minister, who was also a member of the advisory board of the Chase Manhattan
Bank, the first article of the civil and commercial code proceedings was
modified in order to allow demands against Argentina from abroad to stand
without having to present their cases before the Argentine judicial system.
This marked the beginning of a fundamental economic change that favored
transnational corporations. With that crucial step, the dictatorship entered
into crisis, producing internal disputes within the military as its economic
policy failed. The defeat of the Argentine military on the Malvinas Islands
in June 1982 precipitated its decline. As a result, democratic government
was restored on December 10, 1983.
To understand how the case of Argentina relates to the international
capitalist system or global economy (neoliberalism), it is important to
remember that capitalism is, in essence, a system that expands both
internally and externally. In the case of Argentina, it is important to
recall what Paul Sweey calls the "financialization" mechanism in the process
of capital accumulation. This process, which developed in Argentina over a
ten-year period, generated a huge concentration of money and involved
enormous financial earnings which found their way directly into the vaults
of the foreign banks, that is, they were not used to stimulate the growth of
the national economy. This cult of "cash flow," which is the religion of
globalization, results in companies being bought and sold simply because of
their capacity to generate large sums of money. This policy was supported by
a political class in Argentina which operated from within the government and
by the financial ruling class, using various forms of corruption without any
inhibitions or controls.
During the last quarter of the 20th century, only the highest strata of
Argentine society saw their incomes increase while the poorest sectors
continually declined. During this period, some 32 million people saw their
incomes, worth $27 billion, transferred into the hands of 5 million.
Simultaneously, a process of extracting investments out of production
(sometimes called "asset stripping" or "deindustrialization") reappeared
during the golden age (1950-1970), a phenomenon that has persisted down to
the present. All this happened within the context of an expanding global
capitalist market, which left its devastating imprint upon Argentine
society, culminating in the recent dramatic collapse.
MASS PROTESTS
In the present protests against the freezing of depositors' savings-the
corralitos a measure imposed by Domingo Cavallo during the presidency of de
la Rua and ratified by Jorge Remes Lenicov, Economic Minister under
Duhalde-workers lost their jobs; the impoverished middle class lost its
identity; depositors with money in the bank had extreme restrictions placed
upon their withdrawals; and, retired people received payments only
occasionally or had their payments reduced because of liquidity problems. As
a result, all these groups organized into movements of urban protest to
demonstrate against those responsible for their impoverishment and the
helpless situation in which they find themselves submerged.
At the same time, many other protests developed against a variety of other
serious social injustices plaguing Argentina. They are known as "the
unemployed movement," "the picketeers" and "those without a roof," groups
that use different tactics in carrying out their protests. Few of them have
any revolutionary orientation for their actions. They are not organized on
the basis of ideological theory; they do not mention Marx or Bakunin, as
during the movement of struggle and protest in the 1970s; no talk about
liberation theology or class struggle or the revolution of the proletariat.
Protests are noisy but peaceful. Sometimes, groups interested in provoking
violence infiltrate the marches, in combination with undercover agents,
para-police groups or political sectors opposed to the government. These
protests, called cacerolazos, move along with people banging on their pots
and pans or employing other noisemakers such as drums, keys or bells.
Protests are organized as neighborhood assemblies without the participants
belonging to any political party or union structure, but each has a
particular focus or goal.
For instance, the "Neighbors of Buenos Aires" group demanded
renationalization of banks, privatized businesses and the social security
system. Another pressured the government not to pay the foreign debt and
called for the resignation of the Supreme Court judges; for justice and
punishment of those responsible for the repression in the Plaza de Mayo on
the day President de la Rua resigned. Some demanded that mortgages be
payable in pesos, using the exchange rate that existed at the end of 2001
when a peso equaled a dollar. The protest against the high electric and
telephone rates called for not using those services. One national cacerolazo
protest, carried out on January 25, organized itself by utilizing all the
communication media. Hospital employees and medics closed off streets and
highways because of the lack of medicines and the delay in the payment of
their wages. Those "without roofs" were made up of middle class people with
secondary and university education, who remain on the street because they
were thrown out of their living quarters for not paying their rents or the
installments on their mortgages. It is estimated that those without housing
and having no place to live today number 1,200,000 persons.
Thus the Argentine middle class is passing through a complete identity
crisis through the loss of their belongings and the positions they once held
in society. In 2001, of the 4 million Argentines who were below the poverty
line, 2 million came from middle-class homes where their incomes have
radically declined. Only 1.6 million people come from homes suffering from
endemic or permanent poverty who are living in emergency shelters or in very
precarious locations.
Catastrophe is coming to Argentina. The banks have no money to return to
their depositors, so a breakdown in the banking system appears imminent,
especially given the pressure of the international financial institutions,
which is forcing the nation to follow the same rules that applied before
this crisis erupted. As a result, an immediate moral dilemma for the
politicians is to evaluate which economic risk the Argentine government is
willing to take in order to avoid an even greater economic or social risk.
The ultimate dilemma of the Argentine people in its search for an economic
solution to the present extreme crisis is this: Can the present financial
system be reformed? Can the country be considered independent? Can a Supreme
Court and judicial system be installed that is not corrupt? In the face of
all this, the fundamental question is: Can economies in a state of such
collapse save themselves by adopting Washington's model of free trade
without restrictions, or will they have to seek solutions independent of the
suicidal model offered by the New World Order?
Salomon Partnoy CM, was formerly Professor of Audit and Analysis of Account
Balances at the Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahia Blanca, Argentina
(1957-1995). Since 1994, he has lived in Washington, D.C. Contact the author
at: rspa...@aol.com
G*rd*n
| > police power and the like are noticeable by their absence from
| > your list and their presence in the world as it is. The
| > implication is that you approve, or at least condone, State
| > agencies to carry on such activites.
"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.>:
| People's rights need to somehow be protected both from internal and external
| agressors. Governments are instituted by the people for this reason.
Once you let the camel's nose in the tent, however, the
camel follows. The sort of expenditures you complained
about follow from the principle that the people may be taxed
to support military organization (and if they may be taxed,
then they must be taxed). For instance, Welfare: Welfare is
akin to Public Health and Sanitation, which in turn are of
military interest because the military needs a healthy, obedient
community to draw soldiers, money and supplies from. But the
unregulated poor are source of disease, corruption, crime and
rebellion. Therefore, the poor must be regulated by giving
them various services, goods and funds, requiring certain
performances of them, and policing them closely. Similar
observations may be made of education. All of this was
discovered and put into practice in the 18th and 19th centuries
by the great imperial powers; it's not merely theory.
| ...
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > Argentina was first world when in practiced capitalism,
> > collapsed to third world when it raised trade barriers and
> > launched massive government interference in private control
> > of the means of production.
Jesse Nowells
> These assertions belie the facts.
>
> [www.zmag.org/content/Economy/cibils0120.cfm]
>
> Argentina: The demise of neoliberal economics?
Argentina has not practiced neoliberal economics since Peron took
power.
Before Peron took power, Argentina was first world.
Since then it has been sinking ever deeper. Whenever something
goes wrong, pinkos and fascists can find some way of blaming it
on capitalism, but it is striking that capitalism supposedly
fails the most, in those countries where it is practiced the
least.
--digsig
James A. Donald
BGMRBxeN+XbqRS3YM0Q2TPPBPI3nJsHbbiAvErQgiHa
pRsTLNvufrWndFngGdQDMwl8uJv4dJqR1w3mMvII
4F3VvIC2vexbq3rgfMOmagZMvmdyxnSP80ekDKz9w
Sean P. Burke
Jesse Nowells <jnow...@transbay.net> writes:
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Constantinople wrote:
>
> > >The poorest don't make macroeconmic policy.
>
> > Capitalism is not defined by macroeconomic policy.
>
> Poor people do not determine the policy of whole systems that are applied
> to them & in which they are induce to operate within. The poorest people
> do not make economic policy & they don't determine what the predomiated
> economic system is. Poverty is often the result of people having
> capitalism practiced on them, not a lack of "practice" on their part.
<snip>
> [www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Disasters_Neolib_Argen.html]
>
> Disasters of Neoliberalism Argentina in flames
>
>
> CovertAction Quarterly, Spring 2002
<snip>
After snipping away all the rhetorical bluster, you get the following
cold facts of the Argentine predicament:
> When the government of Isabel Peron fell in 1976, the foreign debt of
> Argentina was calculated at $7.5 billion; by 2001 its debt had reached
> $142.3 billion, while the interest owed between 1992 and 2001 amounted to
> $83.2 billion. In 1990, monetary parity between the peso and the dollar was
> fixed. Thus, the money supply is controlled by the amount of reserves in
> dollars in the Central Bank. In order to pay its bills, the State borrows
> more foreign money instead of increasing the money supply or using funds
> from the income of the nation's production.
Basically, the Argentine state has never been able to close its
public sector defecit. We all are responsible for living within
our means - individuals, corporations, and nation-states. How
this indicts free-market economics is not clear to me.
> This system of outside financing, which while successful in controlling
> hyper-inflation during the Alfonsin government, was completely abused during
> Menem's administration, created a new crisis resulting from corruption at
> high levels: the squandering of presidential expenses, excessively high
> salaries paid congressional members and government employees, the widely
> accepted practice of not paying taxes and a corrupt judicial system which
> refused to investigate any of these illicit activities. All these factors
> turned the national fiscal deficit into a chronic foreign debt that finally
> became unpayable and led to default.
Strip away all of the accusations of malfeasance, and you get the following:
Argentina could close its fiscal deficit by raising taxes (or just collecting
taxes already owed) or by reducing public spending. Argentina's political parties
have chosen to do neither. Instead, they are playing a game of political chicken,
and demanding that the IMF underwrite the risks.
<snip>
> The ultimate dilemma of the Argentine people in its search for an economic
> solution to the present extreme crisis is this: Can the present financial
> system be reformed? Can the country be considered independent? Can a Supreme
> Court and judicial system be installed that is not corrupt? In the face of
> all this, the fundamental question is: Can economies in a state of such
> collapse save themselves by adopting Washington's model of free trade
> without restrictions, or will they have to seek solutions independent of the
> suicidal model offered by the New World Order?
This is obviously fatuous. It is clear that Argentina's financial
problems are rooted in political failure - the failure to balance
their budget. Until that is corrected, no amount of tinkering with
trade policy will help.
> Salomon Partnoy CM, was formerly Professor of Audit and Analysis of Account
> Balances at the Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahia Blanca, Argentina
> (1957-1995). Since 1994, he has lived in Washington, D.C. Contact the author
> at: rspa...@aol.com
This fellow obviously believes that, even after bank deposits have been
frozen and their economy is in ruins, Argentinians can still afford to
pass their time scoring cheap political points. I predict that things
will get worse before they get better.
Charles Novins
news:96dc81b9.02112...@posting.google.com...
Whenever something goes wrong, pinkos and fascists can find some way of
blaming it on capitalism, but it is striking that capitalism supposedly
fails the most, in those countries where it is practiced the least.
CHARLES NOVINS:
My personal favorite: The energy crisis in California, which was caused by
"deregulation." The whiners in that scenario evidently believed price
controls to be an element of free markets. Pathetic.
Michael A. Clem
Jesse Nowells wrote:
> ... as oppose to the "simpletons" who want the state to stop protecting
> the people from corporate exploitation altogether & allow the corporations
> to run roughshod over everybody with the state not only not interferring
> but giving greater assistance to corporate agendas ...
>
>
Oh, right. I keep forgetting that corporations don't need no stinkin'
customers--they're magically self-supporting, just like governments.
Also, if, as some assert, corporations and the corporate structure only exist
because of government, what happens to corporations and corporate structure
without the government?
robert parker
The absence of the legal use of force, against consenting
adults.
>
>Cheers
>M
>
Tomm Carr
> This is totally fabricated. Socialists are all for success,
> unless it has inhuman or immoral costs.
No you aren't. You can't even define or provide an example of "success
without inhuman or immoral costs."
Tomm
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But, in practice, there is.
Longbow
<jnow...@transbay.net> wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Constantinople wrote:
>
>> >The poorest don't make macroeconmic policy.
>
>> Capitalism is not defined by macroeconomic policy.
>
>Poor people do not determine the policy of whole systems that are applied
>to them & in which they are induce to operate within. The poorest people
>do not make economic policy & they don't determine what the predomiated
>economic system is. Poverty is often the result of people having
>capitalism practiced on them, not a lack of "practice" on their part.
Capitalism, unlike socialism is no something that one practices. It
is nto a system or a scheme. It is the lack of such things. The
point of capitalism is that NO ONE has the right to determine "the
economic system". Economic policy is something that capitalists do
not make either. Economic policy is something that only governments
can make intervening into a free market.
The fact that you discuss it under the assumption that one must have
"a system" is begging the question if you are attempting to
meaningfully criticize capitalism. In fact, it is a deliberate and
unscrupulous attempt to block any discussion of it, actually. Only if
you can consider the possibility of no one being able to force their
economic "system" on anyone can you even contemplate capitalism and
you are deliberately trying to make it difficult or impossible for
someone to even broach such a subject.
Ron Allen
> Socialists believe any success that is secured at another's loss, or
> at the cost of other people's ruin and undoing is not true success.
> I do not envy the material successes of kleptocratic élites.
Carlos Antunes wrote:
> It would be nice if socialists only believed that. The problem is
> that socialists also believe that they should *prevent* others from
> being successful, at gun point, if necessary.
Ron Allen wrote:
> This is totally fabricated. Socialists are all for success, unless
> it has inhuman or immoral costs.
G*rd*n wrote:
> Well, it's not totally fabricated; it's a reflection. The capitalist
> State is one in which an elite class dominate all important activity,
> especially the businesses, the government, the academic system, and
> the means of public communication. If someone comes along and proposes
> a more egalitarian distribution of power, in this case socialism, many
> capitalism fans seem to project into this proposal a mirror image of
> their own preferred system with, essentially, exactly the same primary
> attribute: domination by an elite.
Constantinople wrote:
> The explanation is much more simple.
Ron Allen answers:
Beware of Constantinople's simple explanations, for they
reek with a simpleton's air of simpleminded simplicity.
Constantinople wrote:
> We are aware of the track record of actual socialism.
Ron Allen answers:
See what I mean?
Yes, Mr. C, we are all fully aware of actual socialism's
black-hearted track record. And if your simple mind can
only see that record, and cannot critique it, or reflect
upon its meaning, other than to mindlessly parrot the same
imbecilic prattle, then you go ahead and do your thing.
We get nowhere in these discussions. We have nothing we
can agree on, because you cannot bring yourself to believe
there can be a common ground between us. It's all black
and white. Socialism is pure evil to you, and has no
good aspects. Capitalism is pure honesty and morality to
you, and has no bad aspects. I am a democratic socialist,
and I have acknowledged the many crimes of 20th-century
socialism and communism. But I am still a democratic and
libertarian socialist, because I can see why those evil
socialist and communist experiments failed so miserably,
and I can also see why capitalism has also failed miserably.
We can keep this empty foofaraw going, or we can actually
try doing some intelligent dialogue. I'm willing to start
fresh, and if you'll allow honest disagreement, perhaps we
can learn from each other.
Let's consider your beef about actual socialism's track
record. Can you honestly say these socialism's were truly
democratic from first to last? Can you honestly say if
you simply cannot imagine a socialist democracy? Are these
contradictory ideas? If you don't like socialism, do you
like democracy? Do you believe democracy is as evil as the
actual socialist régimes you have such a hate on for? Let's
take baby steps. Let's try to be civil and sensible. I'm
not just address you, Mr. C. I'm asking everybody to use
this forum for a honorable and praiseworthy pursuit of
intelligent and interesting conversation. We are fellow-
travelers on a passage from birth to death, and we all are
here together, making contact, for a brief time. We can
and should respect each other. We will not be here when
future generations decide the best course to take together
as a species and as a society. We're really only talking.
We're not deciding the future fate of humanity in these
newsgroups. So, let's relax, reflect, and reason together.
G*rd*n wrote:
> So rather than criticize socialism as it is proposed, which is
> apparently an incomprehensible conundrum, they criticize it as a
> reflection of what they already know.
Constantinople wrote:
> What they already know is the record of socialist experiments.
Ron Allen answers:
We all know about that evil record. It is not contested.
It is not disputed.
Constantinople wrote:
> Capitalism is not dominated by an elite.
Ron Allen answers:
How can you justify this statement? What does "élite" mean
to you? If we are not in a democracy, then how can there
not be an élite?
Constantinople wrote:
> Because we have choice, . . .
Ron Allen answers:
This is not contested. We do have choices. This is not
disputed.
Constantinople wrote:
> . . . we are not dominated.
Ron Allen answers:
There are those who favor laissez-faire capitalism who say
that we are dominated. How can you say this? If you say
democracy is tyranny, then what do you favor that is not a
tyranny? Do you believe that a dominated people can have
no choices?
Constantinople wrote:
> Socialists seek to deprive us of choice.
Ron Allen answers:
Socialists do not seek such a thing. You believe socialism
will deprive people of choice, but it's just wrong to say
that socialists seek to deprive people of choice.
Constantinople wrote:
> If they were to succeed in that effort, then we would become dominated
> by an elite. Frequently socialists characterize choice as frivolous:
> who needs so many brands of cereal? Or, as one socialist recently
> complained:
> Polonius Manque:
> "Do we really need, say, 57 different "kinds" of toilet paper made by
> 5 companies?"
Ron Allen answers:
Is this all that choice means to you, Mr. C?
What do you think about U. S. citizens having the right to
directly elect the President? Does this choice matter, or
just the choice between Peter Pan or Jif?
Constantinople wrote:
> In contrast to private enterprise, which provides goods on an
> individual basis to individually willing customers, socialists
> generally, these days, make the claim that the economy should be
> controlled by democratically elected representatives. But democratic
> choice is not individual choice. For example, judging by their
> attitude, socialists did not individually choose Bush, and yet they
> have to live with him as the President of the US. A democratically
> elected elite is still an elite.
Ron Allen answers:
It is controversial whether or not a U. S. President is
elected democratically. But I do regard Bush as the
President of the United States. If you like choice, then
you'll have to take having to live with our choices as a
correlate of having the freedom to choose.
Is an élite still an élite if it's not elected by the
citizens of a democracy?
Constantinople wrote:
> So in that way, too, socialists seek to place an elite over us, and
> to give them greater power than the state currently has.
Ron Allen answers:
OK! So, you believe that a democracy elects élites into
power? Tell us, what form of government does not have
élites in power.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"The multitude is always in the wrong."
-- Wentworth Dillon, Earl of Roscommon
Ron Allen
> I see envy as the mainspring of socialism.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Are you a socialist? Do capitalists have envy?
> If envy is the mainspring of socialism, then what is the mainstay of
> capitalism? Love?
Curt Plumb wrote:
> Envy compels a man to dwell on the success of his neighbor rather
> than setting about to succeed on his own.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Socialists believe any success that is secured at another's loss, . . .
Ian wrote:
> ALL success (in materialist or economic terms) is secured at another's
> loss.
Ron Allen answers:
Allow me to use one of my favorite examples. It's both very
delightful and very instructive. Let's talk about success
in achieving an orgasm. In the ideal sexual bouncy-bouncy,
both parties achieve orgasm. Both parties win, and neither
party loses. And so, there can be mutual success, both
parties winning, and neither party losing.
Ian wrote:
> Resources are limited and that which is gained by one is that which
> was not gained by others but could have been.
Ron Allen answers:
Resources are limited, but not every exchange necessarily
involves a winner and a loser. There are exchanges that do
involve a winner and a loser, but not every exchange must
always have a winner and a loser.
Ron Allen wrote:
> . . . or at the cost of other people's ruin and undoing is not true
> success. I do not envy the material successes of kleptocratic élites.
Ian wrote:
> All possible systems of economics are in a sense "kleptocratic" because
> resources are always limited. Communism/capitalism/socialism are all just
> different systems at distributing finite resources. In all these systems
> people lose and people gain, the only difference is how these gains and
> losses are spread amongst different individuals.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"A successful man loses no reputation."
-- Thomas Fuller
Carlos Antunes
>
> Allow me to use one of my favorite examples. It's both very
> delightful and very instructive. Let's talk about success
> in achieving an orgasm. In the ideal sexual bouncy-bouncy,
> both parties achieve orgasm. Both parties win, and neither
> party loses. And so, there can be mutual success, both
> parties winning, and neither party losing.
>
It's indeed a good example of a transaction involving free and consenting
adults pretty much illustrating the beauty of capitalism. Capitalism is
supposed to be like this all the time. Thanks for the excellent example.
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
Publius2k
"James A. Donald" wrote:
>
> --
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 01:52:47 -0800, Jesse Nowells
> <jnow...@transbay.net> wrote:
> > It doesn't follow that because you can refer to communist
> > mass murderers that there are no capitalist mass-murderers.
> > In terms of billions of people the capitalist system results
> > in:
> >
> > [from www.globalissues.org]
> >
> > Half the world -- nearly three billion people -- live on less
> > than two dollars a day.
>
> Odd that the poorest are those that practice capitalism the
> least.
And the richest practice exploitive capitalism the most. Isn't
that the point?
GDP is not in indicator of quality of life, freedom or the
pursuit of happiness.
Carlos Antunes
news:wJDE9.4367$Se1....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> And the richest practice exploitive capitalism the most.
>
What the heck is exploitive capitalism?
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
Publius2k
> >
> > > We are aware of the track record of actual socialism.
> >
>
> Apparently not.
>
> > > Capitalism is not dominated by an elite.
> >
>
> Which is not to say that capitalism is dominated by an elite.
>
> > > Because we have choice, we are not dominated.
> >
> > We have limited choices & if we choose not to go along with the economic
> > system, we will inevitably be at war with it. You can't just build a shack
> > anywhere & start growing food.
>
> We will have limited choices for all time regardless of what anyone
> does. You can indeed just build a shack and start grwoing food -- not
> just anywhere, but somewhere -- and choices are limited
> nevertheless. The fact of limits on choice is therefore not a
> criticism of capitalism. In order to criticize it on those grounds you
> must identify particular limits and show that they would be removed
> under some alternative to capitalism and show that no more onerous
> ones would appear in their place.
When all land is privatized and allocated, future generations
are born into servitude.
There are viable alternatives.
Note James Madison's remarks: "...as had been observed (by Mr.
Pinckney) we had not among us
those hereditary distinctions of rank which were a great source
of the contests in the ancient governments as well as the modern
States of Europe...We cannot, however, be regarded even at this
time as one homogeneous mass....In framing a system which we
wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes
which ages will produce. An increase of population will of
necessity increase the proportion of those who will labor under
all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal
distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber
those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According
to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the
hands of the former."
In order to prevent common people from having an equal say in
public affairs and to safeguard private power in general by
limiting public power, the Framers chose to discard the
arrangement under the Articles of Confederation where the
important powers of government were vested in a single
legislature and resurrect England's aristocratic system of
"checks and balances." The purpose of checks and balances was
this: public power would be "checked," especially the House of
Representatives which was closest to the people. Moreover, the
House of Representatives would be "balanced" by the interests of
property by giving property owners a greater voice in two ways:
1) the Presidency and the Senate would be elected directly by
property owners through the electoral college and state
legislatures respectively, and 2) the Presidency and the Senate
would be given more power than the House in the government.
John Adams, who once stated, "We have been told that our
struggle has loosened the bonds of government everywhere; that
children and apprentices were disobedient; that schools and
colleges were grown turbulent; that Indians slighted their
guardians, and negroes grew more insolent to their masters," was
the supreme advocate of checks and balances. Although he was
not at the convention, many of the delegates shared his desire
that the structure of the new government should follow closely
on the British model. In the British system, the House of
Commons (common people or small property owners) was balanced by
the House of Lords (aristocrats or large property owners) and
the king. In this way, should "wicked projects" emerge from the
"lower" house, such legislation could be checked by the "upper"
house or if necessary by the executive, in this case the king.
Again we can see that common people, in this model, are
distrusted and that property owners are thought of as "better"
or more "virtuous." That most of the Framers shared these
assumptions and used these terms is well-documented. The
relationship of the Presidency and the Senate to the Congress
was intended to parallel the checks and balances built into the
British system; property, argued the Framers, was the
stabilizing force. People with property are conservative and
cautious. People without property have nothing to lose and
engage in foolish experiments.10 Therefore, the Framers chose to
have an "upper house" or Senate which could check the House of
Representatives, the "lower house." The Senate would represent
property by virtue of representing entire states (as Madison
correctly noted a very large district such as a state takes in a
greater variety of parties and interests making it more
difficult for underclass people to sustain a majority, not to
mention the greater and prohibitive campaign costs) and by
having Senators elected by state representatives (who were far
more connected to property than the general electorate).
Senators would also be given longer terms than members of the
House (six years as opposed to two). This design reversed the
popular trend toward unicameral (single chamber) legislatures,
small districts, annual elections, and rotation in office.
Stated Edmund Randolph, if the task of the delegates was to
"provide a cure for the evils under which the United States
labored," then, "in tracing these evils to their origin every
man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy:
that some check therefore was to be sought for against this
tendency of our governments: and that a good senate seemed most
likely to answer the purpose."11 Historian Arthur Lovejoy
concludes that the intention of the Framers in adding a senate
to the legislative branch was to insure that "the poor" could
never get a law passed which would be unfavorable to the
economic interests of "the rich." But for a general view, we
need to come back to Madison, Father of the Constitution:
"The landed interest, at present, is prevalent, but in process
of time...when the number of landholders shall be comparatively
small...will not the landed interests be overbalanced in future
elections? and, unless wisely provided against, what will become
of our government? In England, at this day, if elections were
open to all classes of people, the property of landed
proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would take
place. If these observations be just, our government ought to
secure the permanent interests of the country against
innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the
government, to support these invaluable interests, and to
balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as
to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." As
Veron Parrington states, the "revolutionary conception of
equalitarianism, that asserted the rights of man apart from
property and superior to property, did not enter into their
thinking...."12
excerpted from:
Toward an American Revolution
Exposing the Constitution and other Illusions
Jerry Fresia Chapter 3
The Constitution: Resurrection of An Imperial System
Go to http://www.cyberjournal.org for the whole book online....
Alternatives to the model of hoarding and stockpiling, to life
by greed, under coercion, taxes to subsidize the security of the
elite?
Notes Lewis Henry Morgan regarding the Iroquois peoples in
Ancient Society [1877]:
"Everything runs smoothly without soldiers, gendarmes, or
police, without nobles, kings, governors, prefects or judges;
without prisons, without trials. All quarrels and disputes are
settled by the whole body of those concerned...."
"That, on the principle of a communion of property, small
societies may exist in habits of virtue, order, industry, and
peace, and consequently in a state of as much happiness as
Heaven has been pleased to deal out to imperfect humanity, I can
readily conceive, and indeed, have seen its proofs in various
small societies which have been constituted on that principle."
--Thomas Jefferson to Cornelius Camden Blatchly, 1822
Ben Franklin commented on his contemporaries sarcastically:
"It would be a very strange thing if Six Nations of Ignorant
Savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such an Union
and be able to execute it in such a manner, as that it has
subsisted Ages, and appears indissoluble, and yet a like union
should be impracticable for ten or a dozen English colonies."
Frederich Engels:
"Everything runs smoothly without soldiers, gendarmes, or
police, without nobles, kings, governors, prefects or judges;
without prisons, without trials. All quarrels and disputes are
settled by the whole body of those concerned. . . . The
household is run communistically by a number of families; the
land is tribal property, only the small gardens being
temporarily assigned to the households -- still, not a bit of
our extensive and complicated machinery of administration is
required. . . . There are no poor and needy. The communistic
household and the gens know their responsibility toward the
aged, the sick and the disabled in war. All are free and equal
-- including the women."
excerpted from:
Iroquois Confederation - Oldest Living Participatory Democracy
on Earth:
http://www.ratical.org/ratitorsCorner/11.24.96.html
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/
Book -- Forgotten Founders -- Benjamin Franklin, the Iroquois
and the Rationale for the American Revolution By Bruce E.
Johansen:
"it gives us the opportunity of studying the organization of a
society which, as yet, knows no state."
Complete book online at:
http://www.ratical.com/many_worlds/6Nations/FF.html
Books:
From Freedom to Slavery-The Rebirth of Tyranny in America
and
GIVE ME LIBERTY!-Freeing Ourselves in the 21st Century
by Gerry Spence
``If we are the new American slaves, then who is our master? The
New Master, like some monster escaped from the laboratories of a
noble experiment called the American dream, is the sum total of
an amoral coupling between government and business. It looms as
a monolith hybrid that is neither government nor business and is
composed of individual strands of power that include the
president, Congress, the courts, a multitude of governing
bureaus and agencies, and an immense cluster of multinational
corporations, some as wealthy as great nations.''
-Gerry Spence, Give Me Liberty!
Constantinople
$E54.1...@news1.east.cox.net:
> "Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3DE2DBA0...@bellsouth.net...
>>
>> Allow me to use one of my favorite examples. It's both very
>> delightful and very instructive. Let's talk about success
>> in achieving an orgasm. In the ideal sexual bouncy-bouncy,
>> both parties achieve orgasm. Both parties win, and neither
>> party loses. And so, there can be mutual success, both
>> parties winning, and neither party losing.
>>
>
> It's indeed a good example of a transaction involving free and consenting
> adults pretty much illustrating the beauty of capitalism.
Oooh yeah, that's how I feel every time I do business with someone. Got
something to trade?
Carlos Antunes
>
> When all land is privatized and allocated, future generations
> are born into servitude.
>
I, too, have a problem with land (or any other kind of natural resources)
being privately owned. After all, natural resources weren't produced by
anyone. Why should they be owned, then? Why should some have the ability to
claim ownership of something they did not produce?
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
Carlos Antunes
news:Xns92D2B57...@140.99.99.138...
>
> Oooh yeah, that's how I feel every time I do business with someone. Got
> something to trade?
>
Maybe. What have you to offer? :-)
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
Carlos Antunes
>
> Once you let the camel's nose in the tent, however, the
> camel follows. The sort of expenditures you complained
> about follow from the principle that the people may be taxed
> to support military organization (and if they may be taxed,
> then they must be taxed).
>
I'm not against taxing things not produced by Man, namely, natural
resources. The single tax proposed by Henry George was a brilliant idea.
>
> For instance, Welfare: Welfare is
> akin to Public Health and Sanitation, which in turn are of
> military interest because the military needs a healthy, obedient
> community to draw soldiers, money and supplies from.
>
People don't exist to serve the military. The military exist to serve the
people.
>
> But the unregulated poor are source of disease, corruption, crime
> and rebellion.
>
Crminals are supposed to be in jail.
>
> Therefore, the poor must be regulated by giving
> them various services, goods and funds, requiring certain
> performances of them, and policing them closely.
>
Nope. They are as free as the rich.
>
> All of this was
> discovered and put into practice in the 18th and 19th centuries
> by the great imperial powers; it's not merely theory.
>
Of course! Hand outs are a way to buy people's complacency. One more reason
to outlaw them.
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
Bert Clanton
<spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:
> Ok, I'll take the initiative, then.
>
> My starting point is: freedom is an essential right; any other rights are
> only corolaries; anything not compatible with this principle is immoral and
> should be illegal.
>
"Freedom" is a notion so hallowed in tradition that any deconstruction
seems almost blasphemous. Prepare for blasphemy.
Stripped of its aura of sacredness, "freedom" is simply the absence of
constraint on one's action imposed against one's will by other people.
So a right to "freedom" is simply a right not to have constraints on
one's actions imposed against one's will by other people. I really
don't see that anyone has a right to a complete, unqualified absence
of involuntarily imposed external constraints on his actions. In fact,
it seems obvious to me that there are many people in the real world
whose actions, if not constrained by others' actions, will be extremely
destructive to the safety and well-being of other people. And it seems
equally obvious to me that such dangerous people will seldom
voluntarily restrain their own actions. So in my view, externally
imposed involuntary constraints on action are often necessary, as with
the actions of child molesters, rapists, and murderers. Indeed, from my
perspective, such constraints are often a *moral* necessity.
I also believe in the principle that not paying for what you get is
immoral. I believe that we all derive essential benefits from living in
societies under governments, and that we ourselves as individuals
produce very few of the benefits which we enjoy. I believe that paying
taxes is an essential means of financing many of those essential
socially produced benefits, and that no society whose government is not
financed by taxes will long survive. Since I want to continue receiving
those benefits, and living under a government which is the most
effective way of delivering some of them, I believe that it would be
immoral not to pay taxes. If you disagree, I suggest that you move to
some place where there is not much government: I suggest Somalia . If
you move to such a place, I think that you might very well soon decide
to come back.
And I see "rights" very differently than you do. In my view, you have a
right to do something if and only if two conditions are met:
1. doing that thing is itself not morally wrong, and
2. anyone else's interfering with your doing that thing *is* morally
wrong.
My understanding is that for libertarians and Objectivists, the second
condition is sufficient by itself to establish a moral right to do the
thing in question. I disagree. For me, no one has a moral right to do
what is morally wrong.
> Given the above, the following is immoral and should be illegal:
>
> - Welfare
IMHO necessary for the well-being of some people who are impoverished
through no fault of their own, hence not immoral.
> - Social security
An imperfect system, but much better than its absence. I personally
approve of imposing a means test, and removing the cutoff amount for
Social Security taxation.
> - Income taxes
I disagree. See above.
> - Universal healthcare
IMHO necessary for the well-being of those people who can't
individually afford the health-care that they need. Hence not immoral.
> - Restrictions on speech
Here we agree completely.
> - Restrictions on consumption of certain chemicals
Here we mostly agree. Certainly "The War On Drugs" has proved utterly
ineffective, and very destructive in its unintended consequences.
> - Restrictions on certain sexual activities when performed by consenting
> adults
>
Here we surely agree, except when the activities are objectively
harmful to one or more participants. You might not agree with that
reservation.
> The list goes on.
>
> Obviously, if one starts with a different assumption, one gets different
> results...
Obviously you and I start from very different assumptions.
Best wishes,
Bert
Carlos Antunes
news:261120021101299788%eubi...@charter.net...
>
> "Freedom" is a notion so hallowed in tradition that any deconstruction
> seems almost blasphemous. Prepare for blasphemy.
>
I have no problem with blasphemy.
>
> Stripped of its aura of sacredness, "freedom" is simply the absence of
> constraint on one's action imposed against one's will by other people.
>
But, for freedom to be a moral principle it needs to have universal
applicability. This means that if person A decides to act against person's B
freedom, person A is violating freedom as a moral principle. Note that for
Libertarians, freedom as a right is a moral principle.
>
> I also believe in the principle that not paying for what you get is
> immoral.
>
No doubts. But about about being forced to accept something you do not want?
Isn't that immoral either? I don't mind paying for services I choose to use.
I do mind paying for services I am being forced to finance, whether I use
them or not.
>
> If you disagree, I suggest that you move to
> some place where there is not much government: I suggest Somalia.
>
I am not an anarchist, I am a Libertarian. Libertarians believe Governments
instituted by the people are necessary to protect people's rights.
>
> And I see "rights" very differently than you do. In my view, you have a
> right to do something if and only if two conditions are met:
>
> 1. doing that thing is itself not morally wrong, and
>
Under Libertarianism, rights are themselves moral principles.
>
> > - Welfare
>
> IMHO necessary for the well-being of some people who are impoverished
> through no fault of their own, hence not immoral.
>
It's immoral to ask other to pay welfare against their will. After all, it's
not my fault that those people are impoverished either. Violates freedom of
choice. Therefore, it is immoral.
>
> > - Social security
>
> An imperfect system, but much better than its absence. I personally
> approve of imposing a means test, and removing the cutoff amount for
> Social Security taxation.
>
It forces people into financing a service they may not want to use. Violates
freedom of choice. Therefore, it is immoral.
>
> > - Universal healthcare
>
> IMHO necessary for the well-being of those people who can't
> individually afford the health-care that they need. Hence not immoral.
>
It forces people into financing a service they may not want to use. Violates
freedom of choice. Therefore, it is immoral.
>
> Obviously you and I start from very different assumptions.
>
What is your starting assumption or moral principle?
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
Sean P. Burke
Bert Clanton <eubi...@charter.net> writes:
> In article <e5cE9.154324$E54.8...@news1.east.cox.net>, Carlos Antunes
> <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:
>
> > Ok, I'll take the initiative, then.
> >
> > My starting point is: freedom is an essential right; any other rights are
> > only corolaries; anything not compatible with this principle is immoral and
> > should be illegal.
> >
>
> "Freedom" is a notion so hallowed in tradition that any deconstruction
> seems almost blasphemous. Prepare for blasphemy.
>
> Stripped of its aura of sacredness, "freedom" is simply the absence of
> constraint on one's action imposed against one's will by other people.
> So a right to "freedom" is simply a right not to have constraints on
> one's actions imposed against one's will by other people.
This sounds suspiciously like the definition of 'license', not 'freedom'.
> I really
> don't see that anyone has a right to a complete, unqualified absence
> of involuntarily imposed external constraints on his actions.
The audience cheers as Bert gives his strawman a sound thrashing.
> In fact,
> it seems obvious to me that there are many people in the real world
> whose actions, if not constrained by others' actions, will be extremely
> destructive to the safety and well-being of other people. And it seems
> equally obvious to me that such dangerous people will seldom
> voluntarily restrain their own actions. So in my view, externally
> imposed involuntary constraints on action are often necessary, as with
> the actions of child molesters, rapists, and murderers. Indeed, from my
> perspective, such constraints are often a *moral* necessity.
I suggest that you read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", or Friedrich
Hayek's "The Constitution of Liberty". In this way, your views can be
informed by others who have also considered these questions.
> I also believe in the principle that not paying for what you get is
> immoral. I believe that we all derive essential benefits from living in
> societies under governments, and that we ourselves as individuals
> produce very few of the benefits which we enjoy. I believe that paying
> taxes is an essential means of financing many of those essential
> socially produced benefits, and that no society whose government is not
> financed by taxes will long survive. Since I want to continue receiving
> those benefits, and living under a government which is the most
> effective way of delivering some of them, I believe that it would be
> immoral not to pay taxes.
Perfectly reasonable. Sounds a lot like Mill.
> If you disagree, I suggest that you move to
> some place where there is not much government: I suggest Somalia . If
> you move to such a place, I think that you might very well soon decide
> to come back.
>
> And I see "rights" very differently than you do. In my view, you have a
> right to do something if and only if two conditions are met:
>
> 1. doing that thing is itself not morally wrong, and
>
> 2. anyone else's interfering with your doing that thing *is* morally
> wrong.
>
> My understanding is that for libertarians and Objectivists, the second
> condition is sufficient by itself to establish a moral right to do the
> thing in question. I disagree. For me, no one has a moral right to do
> what is morally wrong.
Do you have an independent definition of what is "morally wrong",
or are you suggesting a completely circular definition of "rights"
and "wrongs"?
> > Given the above, the following is immoral and should be illegal:
> >
> > - Welfare
>
> IMHO necessary for the well-being of some people who are impoverished
> through no fault of their own, hence not immoral.
So what you really mean is, something is "morally right"
if it's necessary?
> > - Social security
>
> An imperfect system, but much better than its absence. I personally
> approve of imposing a means test, and removing the cutoff amount for
> Social Security taxation.
Morally right only when you personally approve?
> > - Income taxes
>
> I disagree. See above.
>
> > - Universal healthcare
>
> IMHO necessary for the well-being of those people who can't
> individually afford the health-care that they need. Hence not immoral.
Morally right because necessary?
> > - Restrictions on speech
>
> Here we agree completely.
>
> > - Restrictions on consumption of certain chemicals
>
> Here we mostly agree. Certainly "The War On Drugs" has proved utterly
> ineffective, and very destructive in its unintended consequences.
Morally wrong because ineffective?
> > - Restrictions on certain sexual activities when performed by consenting
> > adults
> >
>
> Here we surely agree, except when the activities are objectively
> harmful to one or more participants. You might not agree with that
> reservation.
That rules out skiing, sky-diving, motor-racing and
any other dangerous pastimes.
> > The list goes on.
> >
> > Obviously, if one starts with a different assumption, one gets different
> > results...
>
> Obviously you and I start from very different assumptions.
But you haven't shown how any of your personal preferences
follow from the assumptions that you laid out. It's not at
a all clear that they do follow from those assumptions.
Matt
"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:
> "Constantinople" <constan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92D2B57...@140.99.99.138...
> >
> > Oooh yeah, that's how I feel every time I do business with someone. Got
> > something to trade?
> >
>
> Maybe. What have you to offer? :-)
Maybe you two should take this "private."
--
Matt
robert parker
wrote:
But you know having capital makes life much more pleasant. I
have been poor, I am now modestly wealthy, believe me being a
rich capitalist is much better than being poor.
G*rd*n
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
| > For instance, Welfare: Welfare is
| > akin to Public Health and Sanitation, which in turn are of
| > military interest because the military needs a healthy, obedient
| > community to draw soldiers, money and supplies from.
"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.>:
| People don't exist to serve the military. The military exist to serve the
| people.
They're eager to serve. To do so, they just want and need
your money and possibly your body, in ever-increasing amounts,
and your support for imperial ventures on the other side of
the globe, since somebody somewhere sometime might always
prove a threat to them, I mean you, and anyway there's a lot
of stuff like oil to grab, for your benefit, of course. And
as I pointed out, to do this they need to regulate the poor,
train the young, and surveille everybody closely so as to
keep the system in shape. That's what the imperial powers of
other times and places did, and that's what's coming down the
road, while you worry about AFDC.
Bert Clanton
<spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:
> "Bert Clanton" <eubi...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:261120021101299788%eubi...@charter.net...
> >
> > "Freedom" is a notion so hallowed in tradition that any deconstruction
> > seems almost blasphemous. Prepare for blasphemy.
> >
>
> I have no problem with blasphemy.
>
> >
> > Stripped of its aura of sacredness, "freedom" is simply the absence of
> > constraint on one's action imposed against one's will by other people.
> >
>
> But, for freedom to be a moral principle it needs to have universal
> applicability. This means that if person A decides to act against person's B
> freedom, person A is violating freedom as a moral principle. Note that for
> Libertarians, freedom as a right is a moral principle.
>
And of course, since I am not a libertarian, freedom as an unrestricted
entitlement to the absence of externally imposed constraint is not IMHO
a right, and not a moral principle at all, much less a universalizable
one.
If I decide to impose constraint on your behavior against your will, my
motivation may be moral or immoral. If I impose constraint on your
behavior against your will to prevent your harming me or someone else,
then I'm acting morally. If I impose constraint on your behavior
against your will to prevent you from committing a harmless act which I
just happen to disapprove of or find disadvantageous to me, then I am
acting immorally.
> >
> > I also believe in the principle that not paying for what you get is
> > immoral.
> >
>
> No doubts. But about about being forced to accept something you do not want?
I have no objection to your refusing to accept for yourself public
services which you do not want. What I would object to is your
withholding funds which contribute to the financing of public services,
services which are needed by other people and which they are unable to
pay for themselves through no fault of their own.
> Isn't that immoral either? I don't mind paying for services I choose to use.
> I do mind paying for services I am being forced to finance, whether I use
> them or not.
>
Your objection is noted. But IMHO there are services which people need,
which some of them cannot pay for, and whose absence among *those*
people may very well eventually impact many *more* of us, including
you: e.g., the Public Health Service. So while I regard it as
unfortunate that you have to be coerced into doing what I regard as
something you should *want* to do, I must confess that in my view what
you might want or not want is not extremely important in the grand
scheme of things.
> >
> > If you disagree, I suggest that you move to
> > some place where there is not much government: I suggest Somalia.
> >
>
> I am not an anarchist, I am a Libertarian. Libertarians believe Governments
> instituted by the people are necessary to protect people's rights.
>
But (continuing to use "rights"-language) I think that people have some
rights that you don't think they have, and do not have some rights that
you think they have. Consequently, assuming that governments instituted
by the people are necessary to protect people's rights, we disagree
about what the legitimate functions of government are, because we
disagree about what rights people have.
> >
> > And I see "rights" very differently than you do. In my view, you have a
> > right to do something if and only if two conditions are met:
> >
> > 1. doing that thing is itself not morally wrong, and
> >
>
> Under Libertarianism, rights are themselves moral principles.
>
One reason why I am not a libertarian. This position seems incompatible
with my consequentialist view of what moral principles are all about.
> >
> > > - Welfare
> >
> > IMHO necessary for the well-being of some people who are impoverished
> > through no fault of their own, hence not immoral.
> >
>
> It's immoral to ask other to pay welfare against their will.
You and I have very different views of what morality and immorality are
all about. From my perspective, your version of morality is much too
much concerned with what you can get away with not doing, and not
sufficiently concerned with what you ought to do.
It is not immoral to require you to refrain from molesting children,
even if you want to. And IMHO it is not immoral to require you to help
pay for essential services which some of the recipients can't afford,
even if you don't want to.
> After all, it's
> not my fault that those people are impoverished either. Violates freedom of
> choice. Therefore, it is immoral.
>
IMHO a proper morality grants you no freedom of choice to cause harm,
except to prevent greater harm. And it gives you no freedom of choice
to avoid helping to remedy a harm, if you have the means to help remedy
that harm without harm to yourself.
You and I simply disagree about whether another's need confers on you
some moral obligation to do what you can to meet that need, if you can
do it without frustrating your own needs. You say no. I say yes.
But note that what I mean by a "need" is something that one *must* have
in order not to undergo a degradation of physiological or psychological
functioning. IMHO a goal, preference, or desire is not a *need*, but
rather a *want*. You *need* certain vitamins and a certain number of
calories. You don't *need* a house in the suburbs or a six figure
income, even if you want them.
> >
> > > - Social security
> >
> > An imperfect system, but much better than its absence. I personally
> > approve of imposing a means test, and removing the cutoff amount for
> > Social Security taxation.
> >
>
> It forces people into financing a service they may not want to use. Violates
> freedom of choice. Therefore, it is immoral.
>
Again, I don't regard freedom of choice as any kind of moral absolute.
Some choices are personally and/or collectively beneficial, others
harmful. IMHO you have no moral right to choose the harmful ones.
> >
> > > - Universal healthcare
> >
> > IMHO necessary for the well-being of those people who can't
> > individually afford the health-care that they need. Hence not immoral.
> >
>
> It forces people into financing a service they may not want to use. Violates
> freedom of choice. Therefore, it is immoral.
>
Freedom of choice is IMHO not a moral absolute, but is properly
subordinate to other considerations.
> >
> > Obviously you and I start from very different assumptions.
> >
>
> What is your starting assumption or moral principle?
>
In *grossly* oversimplified terms: An act is morally right if it does
not cause avoidable harm, except to prevent greater harm. An act is
morally wrong if it does cause avoidable harm, unless it is committed
to prevent a greater harm.
I'll expand on this grossly oversimplified statement, if you
like--preferably in personal e-mail.
Best wishes,
Bert
Bert Clanton
<sbu...@dev0.welkyn.com> wrote:
> Bert Clanton <eubi...@charter.net> writes:
>
> > In article <e5cE9.154324$E54.8...@news1.east.cox.net>, Carlos Antunes
> > <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, I'll take the initiative, then.
> > >
> > > My starting point is: freedom is an essential right; any other rights are
> > > only corolaries; anything not compatible with this principle is immoral
> > > and
> > > should be illegal.
> > >
> >
> > "Freedom" is a notion so hallowed in tradition that any deconstruction
> > seems almost blasphemous. Prepare for blasphemy.
> >
> > Stripped of its aura of sacredness, "freedom" is simply the absence of
> > constraint on one's action imposed against one's will by other people.
> > So a right to "freedom" is simply a right not to have constraints on
> > one's actions imposed against one's will by other people.
>
> This sounds suspiciously like the definition of 'license', not 'freedom'.
>
I'd really appreciate a more precise definition of "freedom" from your
point of view. My guess, which may be wrong, is that you'd say that my
definition is correct as far as it goes, but lacks something additional
to differentiate actual freedom from the "license" which my statement
defines. What is that additional characteristic? Or do you propose that
my understanding of "freedom" isn't just incomplete, but fundamentally
mistaken?
> > I really
> > don't see that anyone has a right to a complete, unqualified absence
> > of involuntarily imposed external constraints on his actions.
>
> The audience cheers as Bert gives his strawman a sound thrashing.
>
Please correct my "straw-man" definition.
> > In fact,
> > it seems obvious to me that there are many people in the real world
> > whose actions, if not constrained by others' actions, will be extremely
> > destructive to the safety and well-being of other people. And it seems
> > equally obvious to me that such dangerous people will seldom
> > voluntarily restrain their own actions. So in my view, externally
> > imposed involuntary constraints on action are often necessary, as with
> > the actions of child molesters, rapists, and murderers. Indeed, from my
> > perspective, such constraints are often a *moral* necessity.
>
> I suggest that you read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", or Friedrich
> Hayek's "The Constitution of Liberty". In this way, your views can be
> informed by others who have also considered these questions.
>
Okay. Meanwhile, could you briefly state what their response to what I
wrote might be?
> > I also believe in the principle that not paying for what you get is
> > immoral. I believe that we all derive essential benefits from living in
> > societies under governments, and that we ourselves as individuals
> > produce very few of the benefits which we enjoy. I believe that paying
> > taxes is an essential means of financing many of those essential
> > socially produced benefits, and that no society whose government is not
> > financed by taxes will long survive. Since I want to continue receiving
> > those benefits, and living under a government which is the most
> > effective way of delivering some of them, I believe that it would be
> > immoral not to pay taxes.
>
> Perfectly reasonable. Sounds a lot like Mill.
>
I'm honored.
> > If you disagree, I suggest that you move to
> > some place where there is not much government: I suggest Somalia . If
> > you move to such a place, I think that you might very well soon decide
> > to come back.
> >
> > And I see "rights" very differently than you do. In my view, you have a
> > right to do something if and only if two conditions are met:
> >
> > 1. doing that thing is itself not morally wrong, and
> >
> > 2. anyone else's interfering with your doing that thing *is* morally
> > wrong.
> >
> > My understanding is that for libertarians and Objectivists, the second
> > condition is sufficient by itself to establish a moral right to do the
> > thing in question. I disagree. For me, no one has a moral right to do
> > what is morally wrong.
>
> Do you have an independent definition of what is "morally wrong",
> or are you suggesting a completely circular definition of "rights"
> and "wrongs"?
>
In my view, every moral system assumes axiomatically one or more
"foundational goods". For the sake of simplicity of exposition, let's
assume a system with just one foundational good. Then in that system:
An act X is morally right if and only if it does not obstruct the
attainment, presence, or preservation of that foundational good.
An act X is morally wrong if and only if it *does* obstruct the
attainment, presence, or preservation of that foundational good.
A moral agent Y has a moral right to commit act X if and only if X is
morally right. (This is *not* a circular characterization of what it is
for Y to have a "moral right" to do X.)
The particular moral system which I espouse proposes several axiomatic
foundational moral goods. Speaking in a very oversimplified way, these
are, in order of precedence:
OBJECTIVE GOODS:
1. the survival of the terrestrial biosphere;
2. given 1: the functioning of the biosphere in a manner such that it
can provide a long-term habitat for the human species;
3. given 1 and 2: the maximization of physiological and psychological
health over the human species; and
4. given 1-3: the survival and stability of societies which implement
1- 3.
SUBJECTIVE (UTILITARIAN) GOODS:
5. given 1-4: the maximization of preference-satisfaction over the
human species;
6. given 1-5: the maximization of desire-gratification over the human
species; and
7. given 1-6, the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain
over the human species.
> > > Given the above, the following is immoral and should be illegal:
> > >
> > > - Welfare
> >
> > IMHO necessary for the well-being of some people who are impoverished
> > through no fault of their own, hence not immoral.
>
> So what you really mean is, something is "morally right"
> if it's necessary?
>
Not exactly. IMHO something an act or practice is morally right to the
extent that it does not obstruct the attainment, presence, or
preservation of the foundational goods mentioned above. If an act
*promotes* such attainment, presence, or preservation, then it does not
*obstruct* them. To the extent that an act is necessary to promote such
a good, it is a morally right act
> > > - Social security
> >
> > An imperfect system, but much better than its absence. I personally
> > approve of imposing a means test, and removing the cutoff amount for
> > Social Security taxation.
>
> Morally right only when you personally approve?
IMHO my personal approval is irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness
of an act. But I believe that these policies would promote the
physiological and psychological well-being of certain citizens without
obstructing that of others. So I approve of these policies, because I
believe that their implementation would have beneficial consequences.
>
> > > - Income taxes
> >
> > I disagree. See above.
> >
> > > - Universal healthcare
> >
> > IMHO necessary for the well-being of those people who can't
> > individually afford the health-care that they need. Hence not immoral.
>
> Morally right because necessary?
>
Morally right because probably effective in bringing about one or more
of the foundational goods mentioned above.
> > > - Restrictions on speech
> >
> > Here we agree completely.
> >
> > > - Restrictions on consumption of certain chemicals
> >
> > Here we mostly agree. Certainly "The War On Drugs" has proved utterly
> > ineffective, and very destructive in its unintended consequences.
>
> Morally wrong because ineffective?
>
Ineffective, and morally wrong because its unintended consequences are
destructive.
> > > - Restrictions on certain sexual activities when performed by consenting
> > > adults
> > >
> >
> > Here we surely agree, except when the activities are objectively
> > harmful to one or more participants. You might not agree with that
> > reservation.
>
> That rules out skiing, sky-diving, motor-racing and
> any other dangerous pastimes.
>
It admittedly renders them morally questionable, in my view.
> > > The list goes on.
> > >
> > > Obviously, if one starts with a different assumption, one gets different
> > > results...
> >
> > Obviously you and I start from very different assumptions.
>
> But you haven't shown how any of your personal preferences
> follow from the assumptions that you laid out. It's not at
> a all clear that they do follow from those assumptions.
>
I've tried to indicate some of my reasoning above. I'd be happy to
elaborate at some length, but preferably in personal e-mail
correspondence.
Best wishes,
Bert
Sean P. Burke
Bert Clanton <eubi...@charter.net> writes:
You know that the definition is inadequate, because in the next
two sentences you go on to refute it.
> > > I really
> > > don't see that anyone has a right to a complete, unqualified absence
> > > of involuntarily imposed external constraints on his actions.
> >
> > The audience cheers as Bert gives his strawman a sound thrashing.
> >
>
> Please correct my "straw-man" definition.
You do it yourself in the next sentence:
> > > In fact,
> > > it seems obvious to me that there are many people in the real world
> > > whose actions, if not constrained by others' actions, will be extremely
> > > destructive to the safety and well-being of other people. And it seems
> > > equally obvious to me that such dangerous people will seldom
> > > voluntarily restrain their own actions. So in my view, externally
> > > imposed involuntary constraints on action are often necessary, as with
> > > the actions of child molesters, rapists, and murderers. Indeed, from my
> > > perspective, such constraints are often a *moral* necessity.
>
> > I suggest that you read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", or Friedrich
> > Hayek's "The Constitution of Liberty". In this way, your views can be
> > informed by others who have also considered these questions.
> >
>
> Okay. Meanwhile, could you briefly state what their response to what I
> wrote might be?
As you have neatly pointed out, we cannot be free unless we are
protected from coercion by others. A libertarian believes that
governments are instituted in order to provide this protection,
and therefore we must accept that we will also be constrained
from practicing coercion upon others. This is the difference
between freedom and license.
[point of agreement snipped]
This sounds a lot like Utilitarianism as espoused by J S Mill,
in the 1820's and 1830's.
> > > > Given the above, the following is immoral and should be illegal:
> > > >
> > > > - Welfare
> > >
> > > IMHO necessary for the well-being of some people who are impoverished
> > > through no fault of their own, hence not immoral.
> >
> > So what you really mean is, something is "morally right"
> > if it's necessary?
> >
>
> Not exactly. IMHO something an act or practice is morally right to the
> extent that it does not obstruct the attainment, presence, or
> preservation of the foundational goods mentioned above. If an act
> *promotes* such attainment, presence, or preservation, then it does not
> *obstruct* them.
Let's see if I understand your calculus correctly.
1. Clearly, charity is morally right because it enhances the
well-being of widows, orphans, and other needy persons.
2. Is withholding charity is morally right? It does not obstruct
others from making charitable contributions.
3. Is forcing people to contribute to charity morally right?
> To the extent that an act is necessary to promote such
> a good, it is a morally right act
I guess the answer to 3. above is "yes". So you contend that
the end justifies the means?
> > > > - Social security
> > >
> > > An imperfect system, but much better than its absence. I personally
> > > approve of imposing a means test, and removing the cutoff amount for
> > > Social Security taxation.
> >
> > Morally right only when you personally approve?
>
> IMHO my personal approval is irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness
> of an act. But I believe that these policies would promote the
> physiological and psychological well-being of certain citizens without
> obstructing that of others. So I approve of these policies, because I
> believe that their implementation would have beneficial consequences.
If other's well-being is not obstructed, why is it necessary
to compel their participation? And, why is it morally right
that government workers be exempt from participation?
> > > > - Income taxes
> > >
> > > I disagree. See above.
> > >
> > > > - Universal healthcare
> > >
> > > IMHO necessary for the well-being of those people who can't
> > > individually afford the health-care that they need. Hence not immoral.
> >
> > Morally right because necessary?
> >
>
> Morally right because probably effective in bringing about one or more
> of the foundational goods mentioned above.
Would you say that the Berlin Wall was morally right,
because it increased the well-being of those who
benefited from the East German welfare state?
> > > > - Restrictions on speech
> > >
> > > Here we agree completely.
> > >
> > > > - Restrictions on consumption of certain chemicals
> > >
> > > Here we mostly agree. Certainly "The War On Drugs" has proved utterly
> > > ineffective, and very destructive in its unintended consequences.
> >
> > Morally wrong because ineffective?
> >
>
> Ineffective, and morally wrong because its unintended consequences are
> destructive.
But it benefits certain persons who would be liable to become
addicted to substances like cocaine or heroin. You've asserted
that narrow benefits, as in welfare, can justify broader costs,
like taxes.
> > > > - Restrictions on certain sexual activities when performed by consenting
> > > > adults
> > > >
> > >
> > > Here we surely agree, except when the activities are objectively
> > > harmful to one or more participants. You might not agree with that
> > > reservation.
> >
> > That rules out skiing, sky-diving, motor-racing and
> > any other dangerous pastimes.
> >
>
> It admittedly renders them morally questionable, in my view.
OK, but the real question is, if you find them morally wrong,
is it morally right to
> > > > The list goes on.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, if one starts with a different assumption, one gets different
> > > > results...
> > >
> > > Obviously you and I start from very different assumptions.
> >
> > But you haven't shown how any of your personal preferences
> > follow from the assumptions that you laid out. It's not at
> > a all clear that they do follow from those assumptions.
> >
>
> I've tried to indicate some of my reasoning above. I'd be happy to
> elaborate at some length, but preferably in personal e-mail
> correspondence.
You've given quite a sufficient explanation for your views.
Your views, whether you realise it or not, are collectivist
and totalitarian - you assign no rights to individuals.
The moral guidelines that you espouse have been used to
justify great cruelty in the past.
Tomm Carr
news:j0EE9.166062$E54.1...@news1.east.cox.net...
> "Publius2k" <Pub*?@*?li.us> wrote in message
> news:wJDE9.4367$Se1....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > And the richest practice exploitive capitalism the most.
> >
>
> What the heck is exploitive capitalism?
It's a debate tactic that allows you to be critical of the other side no
matter what. When one cannot simply deny a fact (the richest countries in
the world are Capitalist countries), one simply takes that fact and twists
it to move it from the Advantage column to the Disadvantage column.
So, if the poorest countries in the world were Capitalist, that would be a
condemnation of Capitalism as it would show that Capitalism failed to
increase living standards. Since the fact is that the richest countries are
Capitalist, it must be made to be seen that the reason the non-Capitalist
countries are poor is because the Capitalist countries are rich.
No matter what, Capitalism is condemned.
Of course, for this to work, there are several other inconvenient facts that
must also be ignored or twisted. One is that the poor countries were poor
before the appearance of Capitalism (about 200/250 years ago). It is rather
difficult to explain how Capitalism could exploit the wealth of countries
that have never had wealth in the first place. Another is how countries
become rich simply by becoming Capitalist.
This last raises a couple of problems. If the existing CCs (Capitalist
Countries) maintain their wealth by exploiting the poor countries, why do
they allow new CCs to join in this exploitation? If there is only so much
wealth to go around, and the existing CCs want it all, why then do they
actively encourage other countries to become Capitalist? Why do they work
so hard to share their wealth? This just doesn't match the stereotype of
the greedy Capitalist pig.
Of course, anyone with even a High School class in basic economics knows
that a country gains in wealth if it can trade with other wealthy countries.
So Capitalists would like to see all countries become wealthy so they (the
Capitalists) can become even wealthier. If there was a non-Capitalist
method of a country becoming wealthy, the Capitalist wouldn't mind. They
are notoriously unconcerned with whom they trade. That was recognized by
none other than Vladimir Lenin when he said the Capitalists would sell the
rope the Communists would use to hang them.
The Capitalists make no secret of how a country may become wealthy. Some
countries have tried it (Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, etc.) and, by golly,
it works.
But it soon becomes obvious that Capitalism is condemns *because* it works.
Wealth countries have wealthy people. Wealthy people are, by definition,
evil. Ergo, Capitalism is evil because it creates evil people.
Oh, and because it exploits.
Somehow.
Tomm
--
Christian: If there were no God, on what else could we base morality?
Atheist: If there were no God, would we still need morality?
Christian: Of course.
Atheist: Then we base it on that need.
G*rd*n
"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
| > What the heck is exploitive capitalism?
"Tomm Carr" <tomm...@computer.org>:
| It's a debate tactic that allows you to be critical of the other side no
| matter what. ...
The adjective is redundant. There is no non-exploitive form
of capitalism; it wouldn't make any sense. One acquires
capital and goes into business in order to exploit resources
and make a profit. One of the resources is labor -- people
who don't have capital. The really clever capitalists go
into finance capital and government and exploit other
capitalists.
Matt
wrote:
> "Publius2k" <Pub*?@*?li.us> wrote in message
> | > > And the richest practice exploitive capitalism the most.
>
> "Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
> | > What the heck is exploitive capitalism?
>
> "Tomm Carr" <tomm...@computer.org>:
> | It's a debate tactic that allows you to be critical of the other side no
> | matter what. ...
>
> The adjective is redundant. There is no non-exploitive form
> of capitalism; it wouldn't make any sense.
Not for you, anyway.
Evil by definition.
--
Matt
G*rd*n
| > | > > And the richest practice exploitive capitalism the most.
"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
| > | > What the heck is exploitive capitalism?
"Tomm Carr" <tomm...@computer.org>:
| > | It's a debate tactic that allows you to be critical of the other side no
| > | matter what. ...
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > The adjective is redundant. There is no non-exploitive form
| > of capitalism; it wouldn't make any sense.
Matt <anon...@bigfoot.com>:
| Not for you, anyway.
|
| Evil by definition.
If you say so. Most capitalism fans say exploitation is
good, even if they don't use the word. The workers aren't
smart enough, brave enough, or industrious enough to manage
themselves, so kindly old Mr. Capitalist comes along and
flogs 'em to work, and everyone gets rich and lives happily
ever after. No?
Constantinople
>"Publius2k" <Pub*?@*?li.us> wrote in message
>| > | > > And the richest practice exploitive capitalism the most.
>
>"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
>| > | > What the heck is exploitive capitalism?
>
>"Tomm Carr" <tomm...@computer.org>:
>| > | It's a debate tactic that allows you to be critical of the other side no
>| > | matter what. ...
>
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
>| > The adjective is redundant. There is no non-exploitive form
>| > of capitalism; it wouldn't make any sense.
>
>Matt <anon...@bigfoot.com>:
>| Not for you, anyway.
>|
>| Evil by definition.
>
>If you say so. Most capitalism fans say exploitation is
>good, even if they don't use the word.
Most socialists say that mass murder is good, even if they don't use
the word.
>The workers aren't
>smart enough, brave enough, or industrious enough to manage
>themselves, so kindly old Mr. Capitalist comes along and
>flogs 'em to work, and everyone gets rich and lives happily
>ever after. No?
And you say that you don't intend your arguments to be moral.
Matt
wrote:
> "Publius2k" <Pub*?@*?li.us> wrote in message
> | > | > > And the richest practice exploitive capitalism the most.
>
> "Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
> | > | > What the heck is exploitive capitalism?
>
> "Tomm Carr" <tomm...@computer.org>:
> | > | It's a debate tactic that allows you to be critical of the other side no
> | > | matter what. ...
>
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> | > The adjective is redundant. There is no non-exploitive form
> | > of capitalism; it wouldn't make any sense.
>
> Matt <anon...@bigfoot.com>:
> | Not for you, anyway.
> |
> | Evil by definition.
>
> If you say so. Most capitalism fans say exploitation is
> good, even if they don't use the word. The workers aren't
> smart enough, brave enough, or industrious enough to manage
> themselves, so kindly old Mr. Capitalist comes along and
> flogs 'em to work, and everyone gets rich and lives happily
> ever after. No?
That is your (bizarre) interpretation of capitalism, not something
inherent in the word as you claimed above.
The problem is that you are equivocating with the word 'exploit.' It
has a non-pejorative sense, meaning simply "to make use of." As long as
people live together they will _exploit_ each other in this sense, so of
course capitalists condone that kind of exploitation. I imagine anyone
else does, as well.
The other meaning of 'exploit' is the pejorative one, meaning to use
someone unethically for your own advantage.
You shift back and forth between these two meanings of the word,
enabling you to condemn capitalism for its terrible exploitation of the
working masses, and then, when challenged, shifting back to the more
acceptable, neutral sense of the word.
This trick is old hat.
--
Matt
Tomm Carr
If the resources are not privately owned, the goods produced by those
resources cannot be privately owned. You own your car because the car
dealer transferred his ownership to you. He could transfer his ownership
because the factory could transfer its ownership to the dealer. The factory
owned the car because ownership of the resources that went into making it
was transferred to it from the resource owners. If resources may not be
owned, nothing may be owned.
But don't worry too much about future generations. Some of the richest
Capitalists alive own very little land or other raw resources, if any. The
total amount of land and natural resources are fixed, but wealth
increases -- each generation is more wealthy than the last. That is because
the most valuable natural resource is the human brain. Just look at Japan
and Hong Kong. Two extremely wealthy Capitalist countries with almost no
natural resources at all -- except for the drive and ingenuity of their
people.
Individual wealth has no relationship to ownership of land and natural
resources. The future generations will be wealthy in ways we can scarcely
imagine.
Tomm
--
Mayonnaise, n. One of the sauces which serve the French
in place of a state religion. - Ambrose Bierce
Strabo
So the owner can get some peace and quiet?
This is not rocket science.
The key is population. It must be maintained at a level that does
not create pressure on property owners and thus undue pressure on resources.
This is a basic requirement of any culture. It is called survival.
Individual property is simply a means to minimize internal conflict. As
long as there are adequate resources available there will be enough for
everyone. That is after all a part of the 'American Dream'. The private
owner acts as a conservator.
Every successful society develops ways to protect it's resources.
A curb on unbridled population is one of those.
A commutarian utopia cannot exist without an authoritarian elite.
This elite will take advantage of their power and usurp whatever power
or property the rest of the population might have.
Therefore the balance can only be achieved where the people have the power
and the government serves the people.
U.S. borders must be closed to the outside in order to conserve resources and
prevent resentment.
To this end current government policies and the Republican and Democratic
parties
are the enemy of America because they are working as hard as they can to flood
the country with variations of socialists and communists which will in turn
cause an internal war over resources.
> Regards,
> Carlos Antunes.
Joseph K.
wrote:
Why evil? What G*rd*n said amounts to assert that there is no
altruistic form of capitalism, or is it there? You are out there with
capital to exploit materials and human beings as much as possible to
make a profit. No one is saying that is evil except you. The
'exploitive' adjective is redundant.
Joseph K.
G*rd*n
| >| > | > > And the richest practice exploitive capitalism the most.
"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
| >| > | > What the heck is exploitive capitalism?
"Tomm Carr" <tomm...@computer.org>:
| >| > | It's a debate tactic that allows you to be critical of the other side no
| >| > | matter what. ...
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| >| > The adjective is redundant. There is no non-exploitive form
| >| > of capitalism; it wouldn't make any sense.
Matt <anon...@bigfoot.com>:
| >| Not for you, anyway.
| >|
| >| Evil by definition.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >If you say so. Most capitalism fans say exploitation is
| >good, even if they don't use the word.
Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
| Most socialists say that mass murder is good, even if they don't use
| the word.
That's true of any patriot, not just a socialist one. Or
are you saying euphemistic obfuscation is such a popular
habit, it must be excused wherever it appears? But I'm
not criticizing it, just cutting through it.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >The workers aren't
| >smart enough, brave enough, or industrious enough to manage
| >themselves, so kindly old Mr. Capitalist comes along and
| >flogs 'em to work, and everyone gets rich and lives happily
| >ever after. No?
Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
| And you say that you don't intend your arguments to be moral.
I don't see a trace of moralization in what I said. It's
derisory, but on behalf of reason, not faith or morals.
G*rd*n
| > | > | > > And the richest practice exploitive capitalism the most.
"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
| > | > | > What the heck is exploitive capitalism?
"Tomm Carr" <tomm...@computer.org>:
| > | > | It's a debate tactic that allows you to be critical of the other side no
| > | > | matter what. ...
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > | > The adjective is redundant. There is no non-exploitive form
| > | > of capitalism; it wouldn't make any sense.
Matt <anon...@bigfoot.com>:
| > | Not for you, anyway.
| > |
| > | Evil by definition.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > If you say so. Most capitalism fans say exploitation is
| > good, even if they don't use the word. The workers aren't
| > smart enough, brave enough, or industrious enough to manage
| > themselves, so kindly old Mr. Capitalist comes along and
| > flogs 'em to work, and everyone gets rich and lives happily
| > ever after. No?
Matt <anon...@bigfoot.com>:
| That is your (bizarre) interpretation of capitalism, not something
| inherent in the word as you claimed above.
|
| The problem is that you are equivocating with the word 'exploit.' It
| has a non-pejorative sense, meaning simply "to make use of." As long as
| people live together they will _exploit_ each other in this sense, so of
| course capitalists condone that kind of exploitation. I imagine anyone
| else does, as well.
|
| The other meaning of 'exploit' is the pejorative one, meaning to use
| someone unethically for your own advantage.
|
| You shift back and forth between these two meanings of the word,
| enabling you to condemn capitalism for its terrible exploitation of the
| working masses, and then, when challenged, shifting back to the more
| acceptable, neutral sense of the word.
|
| This trick is old hat.
The shifting is entirely in your mind. To _exploit_ means to
make use of; as you observe, one might say we all exploit one
another at times. However, capitalism tends to put people in
permanent roles: here is the capitalist, who exploits; there
is the worker, who is exploited. We do not usually say the
worker exploits the capitalist, because it is usually the
capitalist's will which prevails and dominates the situation;
so he gets to own the verb, the subjectivity of the situation.
Some people think that's okay -- I made fun of them above --
and others don't, but all pretty much agree on what's going
on. Rightists have often made the point that a great majority
of the working class don't _want_ to take the risks and do
the labor capitalists take on, and they don't see a problem
with it. So what's your objection? If it's all right to do
something, why isn't it all right to say what it is? If the
Invisible Hand can do no wrong, why does it have to wear a
glove?
ActualGeek
"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:
What makes you think buildings are a natural formation? Buildings are
produced.
Carlos Antunes
news:ActualGeek-15E74...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> What makes you think buildings are a natural formation? Buildings are
> produced.
>
I was talking about natural resources. If something is man-man then it's not
a natural resource.
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
Constantinople
>"Publius2k" <Pub*?@*?li.us> wrote in message
>| >| > | > > And the richest practice exploitive capitalism the most.
>
>"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
>| >| > | > What the heck is exploitive capitalism?
>
>"Tomm Carr" <tomm...@computer.org>:
>| >| > | It's a debate tactic that allows you to be critical of the other side no
>| >| > | matter what. ...
>
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
>| >| > The adjective is redundant. There is no non-exploitive form
>| >| > of capitalism; it wouldn't make any sense.
>
>Matt <anon...@bigfoot.com>:
>| >| Not for you, anyway.
>| >|
>| >| Evil by definition.
>
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >If you say so. Most capitalism fans say exploitation is
>| >good, even if they don't use the word.
>
>Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
>| Most socialists say that mass murder is good, even if they don't use
>| the word.
>
>That's true of any patriot, not just a socialist one.
So now advocacy of the socialist cause is "patriotism"?
>Or
>are you saying euphemistic obfuscation is such a popular
>habit, it must be excused wherever it appears? But I'm
>not criticizing it, just cutting through it.
Failure to use Marxist jargon is not euphemism, and using the
technical jargon of Marxist theory is not cutting through anything, it
is obfuscation.
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >The workers aren't
>| >smart enough, brave enough, or industrious enough to manage
>| >themselves, so kindly old Mr. Capitalist comes along and
>| >flogs 'em to work, and everyone gets rich and lives happily
>| >ever after. No?
>
>Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
>| And you say that you don't intend your arguments to be moral.
>
>I don't see a trace of moralization in what I said. It's
>derisory, but on behalf of reason, not faith or morals.
You claim that advocates of capitalism spit on the character of the
common man, and I see that assertion of yours as a moral argument. But
in fact they do not. You ought to recognize that a great number of
workers also own capital in the form of their savings. They choose not
to put all their eggs into one basket, i.e., their own company, but
that is not due to stupidity or cowardice. At the end of a person's
life, commonly he stops working (retirement) and lives off the capital
he has accumulated (his savings). Now he is a "pure capitalist", you
might say, but not because he is suddenly smarter than the younger
people who are now working for him.
Constantinople
You're doing natural language philosophy, appealing to what we
"usually say". But the "we" here is only the leftover scum of the 20th
century Marxist deluge.
Carlos Antunes
news:3DE48AF1...@flashnet.com...
>
> This is not rocket science.
>
It's not about science. It's about finding a philosophically defensible
argument for private ownership of something no one produced. I haven't found
that argument yet from a non-pragmatic point of view.
>
> The key is population. It must be maintained at a level that does
> not create pressure on property owners and thus undue pressure on
resources.
> This is a basic requirement of any culture. It is called survival.
>
When you say "it must be maintained" you seem to suggest some kind of
central control on population. That equates with authoritarianism to me and
is therefore a bad thing.
>
> Individual property is simply a means to minimize internal conflict.
>
I have no problem with private ownership per se. I just have a problem
finding a philosophical justification for owning something no one produced.
That is all.
>
> A curb on unbridled population is one of those.
>
Authoritarian comment again. Don't like it.
>
> U.S. borders must be closed to the outside in order to conserve resources
and
> prevent resentment.
>
In my view this is morally wrong. Peaceful people should have the ability to
choose wherever they want to live. Freedom applies to foreigners too.
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
Carlos Antunes
news:8y_E9.219$ob.17...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> If the resources are not privately owned, the goods produced by those
> resources cannot be privately owned.
>
I understand the recursive nature of the problem. That's why I have been
trying to find a way to justify private ownership of natural resources,
something I haven't been able to do so far.
It is 100% clear to me that if you absolutely own whatever you produce and
no one should be able to claim even a small percentage of it. This pretty
much convinces me of the immorality of earned income taxes. Now, what about
ownership of something no one produced?
When the planet was put together by gravity no one was around to say: I
created this. You need to find a way to claim, a posteriori, ownership. But
based on what justification? I understand and tend to agree with the
pragmatic justification you provided but that doesn't totally cut it with
me.
Any suggestions?
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
G*rd*n
| >> | > > And the richest practice exploitive capitalism the most.
"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
| >> | > What the heck is exploitive capitalism?
"Tomm Carr" <tomm...@computer.org>:
| >> | It's a debate tactic that allows you to be critical of the other side no
| >> | matter what. ...
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n)
| >> The adjective is redundant. There is no non-exploitive form
| >> of capitalism; it wouldn't make any sense.
Matt <anon...@bigfoot.com>:
| >Not for you, anyway.
| >
| >Evil by definition.
Joseph K. <ni...@none.com>:
| Why evil? What G*rd*n said amounts to assert that there is no
| altruistic form of capitalism, or is it there? You are out there with
| capital to exploit materials and human beings as much as possible to
| make a profit. No one is saying that is evil except you. The
| 'exploitive' adjective is redundant.
I conclude from the response that we once again observe a
religious reaction. Although certain important aspects of
capitalist behavior can obviously be categorized as exploitation,
the _word_ may not be used because it isn't complimentary and
reverent enough. In fact, it's sufficiently dirty to verge on
blasphemy. The new newsgroup these folks need should probably
be called "talk.religion.capitalism", and ought to be moderated
to keep out those who use naughty language.
ActualGeek
> "Publius2k" <Pub*?@*?li.us> wrote in message
> | > > And the richest practice exploitive capitalism the most.
>
> "Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
> | > What the heck is exploitive capitalism?
>
> "Tomm Carr" <tomm...@computer.org>:
> | It's a debate tactic that allows you to be critical of the other side no
> | matter what. ...
>
> The adjective is redundant. There is no non-exploitive form
> of capitalism; it wouldn't make any sense. One acquires
> capital and goes into business in order to exploit resources
> and make a profit. One of the resources is labor -- people
> who don't have capital. The really clever capitalists go
> into finance capital and government and exploit other
> capitalists.
The definition of exploit gives:
To make use of selfishly or unethically.
Can you show how laborers are not paid for their work? I have never
known this to be the case, and am surprised that laborers would work for
free in a capitalistic society. (OF course they do in socialist ones,
we already knew that.)
If they are paid, how is it "unethical" use of their labor.
Or did you mean the other definition of exploit which merely means to
"use"?
ActualGeek
"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:
Then all usable land is not a natural resource.
mikel
> It's not about science. It's about finding a philosophically defensible
> argument for private ownership of something no one produced. I haven't found
> that argument yet from a non-pragmatic point of view.
Ownership is a relation among people with respect to some scarce
resource--such as land. It is a convention regarding who decides how
that resource is to be disposed. A scarce resource is by its nature
subject to contention, and therefore some decision procedure must and
will be adopted for deciding its use.
This is the same thing as saying that someone will own it.
Land valued by people is a scarce resource, regardless of who did or
did not produce it. Therefore someone will own it.
All the remains is to determine what scheme of ownership is most
congenial.
Reasoning from your contention that no one produced the land
(although that contention is debatable in the case of improved land),
we can tender the position that no particular person has any
particular a priori claim on any particular piece of land--in other
words, we can reason that there is an a priori case for fair
allocation. What allocation is fair?
Given that there will be contention over parcels that people find
valuable, any fair allocation must allow for some reasonable decision
procedure to use in resolving the inevitable disputes. Every possible
decision proceudre corresponds to some scheme of property
rights. Obviously it is infeasible to examine in detail every
possible scheme of property rights, as the number is potentially
infinite. We can consider representative schemes, however.
It might seem fair that everyone owns every piece of land (which is
the same as saying that no one owns any; both are ways of saying that
no one has any particular claim that supercedes anyone else's).
As a practical matter it is impossible to deal with such a scheme
fairly because that would involve consulting everyone on the planet
about every land-use decision for every parcel of land everywhere. The
transaction costs of every land-use decision would make it uneconomic
to do anything. Naturally, few real people are so foolish as to
respect such uneconomic standards, and so when they are attempted
those who foolishly respect them lose out to those who cannily
cheat. That means that any such scheme requires violent enforcers
willing to compel compliance. Unfortunately, the power to compel
compliance with such standards is also the power to cheat with
impunity, with the result that such schemes of ownership in practice
end up empowering ruthless elites to dominate everyone else; see, for
example, the Soviet Union.
As an alternative, we might consider standards that resemble the
common law standards for disposition of scarce resources whose
ownership is unclear. The usual standard is 'finders keepers',
restrained by arbitration in the case of competing claims. In other
words, whoever musters the enterprise to go and claim a piece of land
and defend it is regarded as owning it, so long as someone else does
not come along with a better claim. You might argue that the
industrious explorer's claim is only minimally better than the claim
of someone else halfway around the world, but minimally better is
better. You might argue that another industrious person who failed to
find such a good piece of land has an equally good claim, but let
that person bring his or her claim before a disinterested arbitrator
and find out whether the claim holds up.
It so happens that people can negotiate explicit agreements and
respect tacit agreements regarding property rights respecting such a
scheme, with effects that are considerably less bloody and oppressive
than the former example scheme's. Perhaps this is only a pragmatic
reason to prefer one scheme to another, but any reason is a reason.
Bert Clanton
<sbu...@dev0.welkyn.com> wrote:
Okay. So let me offer a new definition:
"Freedom" is the absence of constraint on one's action imposed against
one's will by other people, except when such constraint is necessary to
prevent one from causing harm which would not prevent greater harm.
I think you'd probably want to modify this to read "causing harm to
other people"; but I would disagree. I'm not a libertarian.
> > > I suggest that you read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", or Friedrich
> > > Hayek's "The Constitution of Liberty". In this way, your views can be
> > > informed by others who have also considered these questions.
> > >
> >
> > Okay. Meanwhile, could you briefly state what their response to what I
> > wrote might be?
>
> As you have neatly pointed out, we cannot be free unless we are
> protected from coercion by others.
I'm not sure that's what I've asserted. I would say that we are not
free unless we are protected from *unnecessary* coercion by others. I
proposed situations in which IMHO coercion is necessary.
> A libertarian believes that
> governments are instituted in order to provide this protection,
> and therefore we must accept that we will also be constrained
> from practicing coercion upon others. This is the difference
> between freedom and license.
>
I'm quite willing to be constrained from practicing *unnecessary*
coercion upon others, and from imposing *unnecessary* requirements upon
others. And I'm quite willing to accept a government which is itself
constrained from practicing *unnecessary* coercion upon its citizens,
and from imposing *unnecessary* requirements upon them. But as the
non-libertarian that I am, I disagree with you somewhat about which
kinds of constraints and requirements are necessary.
"Classical" Utilitarianism says that an action is right to the extent
that it effectively maximizes the "utility" of individual people,
over some population of interest; and that one person's "utility" is
as important as another's. "Utility" is defined in most versions of
Utilitarianism as a certain kind of subjective state: goal-attainment,
preference-satisfaction, desire-gratification, pleasure and/or the
absence of pain.
There is a related kind of ethical philosophy in which "utility" is
taken to be primarily an *objective* state, the survival and effective
functioning of certain kinds of objective living systems, and only
secondarily, if at all, a *subjective* state. This kind of ethical
system is sometimes called "welfare utilitarianism". My own point of
view is an example of this general kind of system.
Since historically most utilitarian ethical systems have been
"subjectivist", I prefer to use a different term to label my
"objectivist" system. I call it "eubiotism". But is differs from
"classical" utilitarianism chiefly in its "objectivist" stance.
> > > > > Given the above, the following is immoral and should be illegal:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Welfare
> > > >
> > > > IMHO necessary for the well-being of some people who are impoverished
> > > > through no fault of their own, hence not immoral.
> > >
> > > So what you really mean is, something is "morally right"
> > > if it's necessary?
> > >
> >
If an action is a necessary means to the appropriately adjudicated
foundational goods of any consequentialist moral system, then that act
is morally right under that moral system. That includes the system that
I favor.
> > Not exactly. IMHO something an act or practice is morally right to the
> > extent that it does not obstruct the attainment, presence, or
> > preservation of the foundational goods mentioned above. If an act
> > *promotes* such attainment, presence, or preservation, then it does not
> > *obstruct* them.
>
> Let's see if I understand your calculus correctly.
>
> 1. Clearly, charity is morally right because it enhances the
> well-being of widows, orphans, and other needy persons.
>
Correct.
> 2. Is withholding charity is morally right? It does not obstruct
> others from making charitable contributions.
>
In my view, one has a positive moral duty to do what one can do,
without objectively harming oneself, to promote the objective
well-being of others. So if you can contribute to charity without
objectively harming yourself, I believe that you have a moral duty to
do so. But if this entails merely reducing your level of luxurious
living, I wouldn't say that you're objectively harming yourself:
"objective harm", for me, means physiological harm or psychological
trauma.
> 3. Is forcing people to contribute to charity morally right?
>
> > To the extent that an act is necessary to promote such
> > a good, it is a morally right act
>
> I guess the answer to 3. above is "yes". So you contend that
> the end justifies the means?
>
Contributing to charity is IMHO a morally right act, in fact a moral
duty, for those who can afford to contribute without causing objective
harm to themselves or others. How far would I go in making moral duties
into legal requirements? I think that's partly a question of the
practicality of enforcement: historically, the Prohibitionist approach
to "the suppression of vice" has been almost completely unsuccessful.
But that doesn't IMHO change the moral status of charitable giving or
of smoking.
> > > > > - Social security
> > > >
> > > > An imperfect system, but much better than its absence. I personally
> > > > approve of imposing a means test, and removing the cutoff amount for
> > > > Social Security taxation.
> > >
> > > Morally right only when you personally approve?
> >
> > IMHO my personal approval is irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness
> > of an act. But I believe that these policies would promote the
> > physiological and psychological well-being of certain citizens without
> > obstructing that of others. So I approve of these policies, because I
> > believe that their implementation would have beneficial consequences.
>
> If other's well-being is not obstructed, why is it necessary
> to compel their participation?
This is again a matter of requiring universal or quasi-universal
contribution to pay for public goods. I believe that this is the most
effective means of financing such public goods.
> And, why is it morally right
> that government workers be exempt from participation?
>
In my view, this is *not* morally right, if they receive benefits from
the system.
> > > > > - Income taxes
> > > >
> > > > I disagree. See above.
> > > >
> > > > > - Universal healthcare
> > > >
> > > > IMHO necessary for the well-being of those people who can't
> > > > individually afford the health-care that they need. Hence not immoral.
> > >
> > > Morally right because necessary?
> > >
> >
> > Morally right because probably effective in bringing about one or more
> > of the foundational goods mentioned above.
>
> Would you say that the Berlin Wall was morally right,
> because it increased the well-being of those who
> benefited from the East German welfare state?
>
I don't belive that, all things considered, the Wall *did* increase the
well-being of the East German population as a whole.
> > > > > - Restrictions on speech
> > > >
> > > > Here we agree completely.
> > > >
> > > > > - Restrictions on consumption of certain chemicals
> > > >
> > > > Here we mostly agree. Certainly "The War On Drugs" has proved utterly
> > > > ineffective, and very destructive in its unintended consequences.
> > >
> > > Morally wrong because ineffective?
> > >
> >
> > Ineffective, and morally wrong because its unintended consequences are
> > destructive.
>
> But it benefits certain persons who would be liable to become
> addicted to substances like cocaine or heroin. You've asserted
> that narrow benefits, as in welfare, can justify broader costs,
> like taxes.
>
I repeat: ineffective as a means for attaining its stated goals; and
morally wrong not because it is ineffective toward its stated goals,
but because it has many destructive unintended consequences.
I wouldn't call the benefits of welfare "narrow". But it's true that
the set of beneficiaries is a proper subset of the set of taxpaying
contributors. Which IMHO is as it should be.
> > > > > - Restrictions on certain sexual activities when performed by
> > > > > consenting
> > > > > adults
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here we surely agree, except when the activities are objectively
> > > > harmful to one or more participants. You might not agree with that
> > > > reservation.
> > >
> > > That rules out skiing, sky-diving, motor-racing and
> > > any other dangerous pastimes.
> > >
> >
> > It admittedly renders them morally questionable, in my view.
>
> OK, but the real question is, if you find them morally wrong,
> is it morally right to
>
Again a matter IMHO of whether prohibitionism is a workable means of
enforcing morality. In my view, it is not.
In my view, certain acts are morally wrong independently of what
anybody thinks and feels about them. Broadly, acts are wrong if they're
harmful, in ways I've discussed before, and otherwise they're morally
right. Generally speaking, attempts to apply governmental, legal
force to enforce morality fail more often than they succeed. The best
situation in my view is one in which most people agree in their beliefs
and attitudes about what they should and shouldn't do, having
"internalized" a moral system. This does sometimes happen. Otherwise,
all this becomes a matter of political jockeying and political
power--IMHO a bad way to do things, but unavoidable in a culturally
diverse society.
> > > > > The list goes on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Obviously, if one starts with a different assumption, one gets
> > > > > different
> > > > > results...
> > > >
> > > > Obviously you and I start from very different assumptions.
> > >
> > > But you haven't shown how any of your personal preferences
> > > follow from the assumptions that you laid out. It's not at
> > > a all clear that they do follow from those assumptions.
> > >
> >
> > I've tried to indicate some of my reasoning above. I'd be happy to
> > elaborate at some length, but preferably in personal e-mail
> > correspondence.
>
> You've given quite a sufficient explanation for your views.
> Your views, whether you realise it or not, are collectivist
> and totalitarian - you assign no rights to individuals.
Wrong all around. My views *are* moderately collectivist--I admit that
cheerfully. But they are not totalitarian. If I were a totalitarian,
I'd be trying to enforce my views on people by other than democratic
means. But I realize that this is futile, and I don't advocate it.
And I assign many rights to individuals. Individuals IMHO have the
right to do anything whatsoever which is morally right--and IMHO that
leaves room for a very rich, full life.
> The moral guidelines that you espouse have been used to
> justify great cruelty in the past.
>
Please cite chapter and verse. I often read statements here and in HPO
equivalent to this--never with substantiating statements.
Best wishes,
Bert
Carlos Antunes
>
> Then all usable land is not a natural resource.
>
Define "usable land", please.
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.