> > > On Jun 19, 6:50 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > Rand's one-word summary for "government" was not
> > > > "capitalism". In fact the purpose for Rand's government would be to
> > > > protect an individual's moral right to life exercised through (free-
> > > > market) capitalist trading activity. If that meant no mandatory
> > > > taxation and no bureaucratic regulation, that is an opinion of good
> > > > government, not a definition of capitalism.
> > > .... which in practical terms means no regulations, no taxation and no
> > > services.
> > No. It means: voluntary taxation
> Again. No such thing as "voluntary taxation".
Yes, any money given to a goverment that a government cannot demand
through force is "voluntary". It is beyond silly that such is a
"gift" or "donation" because a government is not and should not be a
charitable organization. {*} Also, in Rand's view of taxes, a
government can demand fee-for-service for things, but does not imply
any anarcho-capitalist private "protection agencies"
Tax: Charge against a citizen's person or property or activity for the
support of government
but if the government will not collect by any forceful means, it is
voluntary.
{*} I have advocated a three-tiered mandatory, voluntary, and donated
taxation; one for military and criminal-justice, one for health and
science research and education, and the other for welfare projects --
along with a public account of everyone's tax returns in percentages
(not absolute amounts) given, and 100% pay-in for the mandatory tax
(most likely a sales tax).
> I'd agree that there can be bureaucratic regulations that are
> unhealthy. However in Rand's view virtually any regulations are
> essentially form of coercion.
No, she does not say that. She is more of the view that bureaucratic
regulations are pointless and destructive. She specifically claimed a
need for "pollution laws" which means regulation of activites that may
cause pollution *measured by an objective standard*.
> The only allowance she makes is any that
> protect individual rights (typically property rights).
So to say that Rand was against "regulation" of any kind is untrue,
but the meaning of "bureacratic regulation" equates more and more to
*arbitrary* and pointless regulation, like, for example, the Florida
equivalent to the endangered species law is such that if anyone has
ever at any time reported seeing a Florida scrub jay on a piece of
property one wishes to build on, it is almost impossible to do so.
> > On Jun 20, 5:45 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 19, 8:41 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Jun 19, 6:58 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > there was no Absolute Socialism but rather an anarchy in which everyone's
> > > > needs are met without the
> > > > creation of "wealth".
> > > > Communists never created any wealth?
> > > Right, as communists, that would not be their ideological function
> > > according to their ideology. Capitalism creates 'wealth' by way of
> > > income disparity for the very purpose of creating capital.
> > Wrong. Wealth is not a word solely associated with capitalism. It
> > existed long long before the word capitalism existed.
> Wealth can only be associated with what is capitalism.
> surfeit beyond production and subsequent consumption. In economic
> socialism (that are not merely bourgeois democratic socialism in a
> massive welfare state) the entire purpose is to eliminate the
> disparity of wealth of the upper classes (which has it all) against
> the lower classes (which has none) so that everyone has more or less
> what he needs but little beyond that (no one is wealthy). Capitalism
> *requires* wealth, and quite a lot of it,
You are still playing word games. You are using wealth in a different
context as in income disparity. I am using wealth in the context of
goods and property. The latter usage does not apply only to human
beings or political systems. (e.g. A city, a country can also be said
to have wealth)
3. Economics.
a.
all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
b.
anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or
exchanged.
On Jun 20, 7:54 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> {*} I have advocated a three-tiered mandatory, voluntary, and donated
> taxation; one for military and criminal-justice, one for health and
> science research and education,
Show me once where Rand writes she's support taxation to fund
government "health and science research and education". Rand doesn't
support government spending that didn't have to do with protecting
individual rights (mostly amounting to property rights). Courts,
police, military and jails. That's basically it. She wouldn't say no
to voluntary activities that go beyond that (whether done by
government or private industry) but donation based systems would lack
the money to fund a modern government. (other than in say small states
like tax havens where capital flows in from other sources to avoid
capital gains taxes or kingdoms where some attempt to control the
government by raping the countries resources then pretending they
personally "gave" money to the people)
Donations to subsidize a modern government has never been demonstrated
to work. If it worked we'd already have such a system in place. You
can donate even now if you wanted to. What's the delay? You don't
because you think it would be unfair for you to donate more than you
think your fair share. Well the same holds true for pretty much
everyone else. There will be exceptions but as a rule people seek
their personal economic interests and find excuses to justify not
contributing (thus why we have mandatory taxes)
> > I'd agree that there can be bureaucratic regulations that are
> > unhealthy. However in Rand's view virtually any regulations are
> > essentially form of coercion.
> No, she does not say that. She is more of the view that bureaucratic
> regulations are pointless and destructive.
Meaningless. Even Stalin would agree bureaucratic regulations are
pointless and destructive. The hard part is defining what precise
regulation is destructive versus a positive.
> She specifically claimed a need for "pollution laws" which means regulation of activites that may
> cause pollution *measured by an objective standard*.
Rand supported regulations/laws only insofar they protect individual
rights. For instance she's be kosher with a regulation/law that
protected your right not to suffer harm by a neighbour fanning
radioactive isotopes in your direction. However, she wouldn't support
laws that damage the ecosystem in uncertain complex ways because it is
more difficult to link such things to individual rights. (as wildcards
like GW are collective problems)
> On Jun 20, 7:54 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > {*} I have advocated a three-tiered mandatory, voluntary, and donated
> > taxation; one for military and criminal-justice, one for health and
> > science research and education,
> On Jun 20, 7:29 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > surfeit beyond production and subsequent consumption. In economic
> > socialism (that are not merely bourgeois democratic socialism in a
> > massive welfare state) the entire purpose is to eliminate the
> > disparity of wealth of the upper classes (which has it all) against
> > the lower classes (which has none) so that everyone has more or less
> > what he needs but little beyond that (no one is wealthy). Capitalism
> > *requires* wealth, and quite a lot of it,
> You are still playing word games.
According to you, any fixed conceptual meaning through an objective
definiton of a word is "playing word games." That is what makes you a
dissembler without distinctly lying, as when one places a sentence or
a paragraph in wikipedia and then cites that as an authoritative and
objective source.
> > On Jun 20, 7:29 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > surfeit beyond production and subsequent consumption. In economic
> > > socialism (that are not merely bourgeois democratic socialism in a
> > > massive welfare state) the entire purpose is to eliminate the
> > > disparity of wealth of the upper classes (which has it all) against
> > > the lower classes (which has none) so that everyone has more or less
> > > what he needs but little beyond that (no one is wealthy). Capitalism
> > > *requires* wealth, and quite a lot of it,
> > You are still playing word games.
> According to you, any fixed conceptual meaning through an objective
> definiton of a word is "playing word games."
Word games to me is manipulatively ignoring context of what people say
in order to misrepresent their views.
> > > On Jun 20, 7:29 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > surfeit beyond production and subsequent consumption. In economic
> > > > socialism (that are not merely bourgeois democratic socialism in a
> > > > massive welfare state) the entire purpose is to eliminate the
> > > > disparity of wealth of the upper classes (which has it all) against
> > > > the lower classes (which has none) so that everyone has more or less
> > > > what he needs but little beyond that (no one is wealthy). Capitalism
> > > > *requires* wealth, and quite a lot of it,
> > > You are still playing word games.
> > According to you, any fixed conceptual meaning through an objective
> > definiton of a word is "playing word games."
> Word games to me is manipulatively ignoring context of what people say
> in order to misrepresent their views.
Words games to you is to ever present a fixed meaning of a concept
represented in a word and to steer clear of a discussion of 'dark
matter' when defining 'coercion'.
> > On Jun 21, 5:54 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 20, 7:58 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Jun 20, 7:29 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > surfeit beyond production and subsequent consumption. In economic
> > > > > socialism (that are not merely bourgeois democratic socialism in a
> > > > > massive welfare state) the entire purpose is to eliminate the
> > > > > disparity of wealth of the upper classes (which has it all) against
> > > > > the lower classes (which has none) so that everyone has more or less
> > > > > what he needs but little beyond that (no one is wealthy). Capitalism
> > > > > *requires* wealth, and quite a lot of it,
> > > > You are still playing word games.
> > > According to you, any fixed conceptual meaning through an objective
> > > definiton of a word is "playing word games."
> > Word games to me is manipulatively ignoring context of what people say
> > in order to misrepresent their views.
> Words games to you is to ever present a fixed meaning of a concept
> represented in a word and to steer clear of a discussion of 'dark
> matter' when defining 'coercion'.
I acknowledge ambiguities where they exist. Coercion is one of the
concepts. Pretending ambiguities don't exist will not make
uncertainties go away though. Only acknowledging them and dealing with
them has any hope of moving forward towards richer conceptualizations
of reality.
During the middle ages they functioned under a earth centrist model of
the universe. When Galileo and Copernicus theories began floating
about many in the church were hostile since it put into question some
of their other assertions. If someone wants to live in a little
universe, the larger universe will not stop existing to satisfy them.
> > > On Jun 21, 5:54 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 20, 7:58 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 20, 7:29 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > surfeit beyond production and subsequent consumption. In economic
> > > > > > socialism (that are not merely bourgeois democratic socialism in a
> > > > > > massive welfare state) the entire purpose is to eliminate the
> > > > > > disparity of wealth of the upper classes (which has it all) against
> > > > > > the lower classes (which has none) so that everyone has more or less
> > > > > > what he needs but little beyond that (no one is wealthy). Capitalism
> > > > > > *requires* wealth, and quite a lot of it,
> > > > > You are still playing word games.
> > > > According to you, any fixed conceptual meaning through an objective
> > > > definiton of a word is "playing word games."
> > > Word games to me is manipulatively ignoring context of what people say
> > > in order to misrepresent their views.
> > Words games to you is to ever present a fixed meaning of a concept
> > represented in a word and to steer clear of a discussion of 'dark
> > matter' when defining 'coercion'.
> I acknowledge ambiguities where they exist.
No, You concoct ambiguities where none exist.
"To compel one do as he otherwise would not do" is not ambiguous, and
to assign one meaning of one English word to that unambiguous action
is unambiguous, and designed for that very purpose.
To introduce "dark matter" into the discussion on what is "to compel
one to do as he otherwise would not do" is anti-intellectual,
dishonest evasion.
> > On Jun 21, 6:31 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 21, 3:32 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Jun 21, 5:54 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 20, 7:58 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 20, 7:29 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > surfeit beyond production and subsequent consumption. In economic
> > > > > > > socialism (that are not merely bourgeois democratic socialism in a
> > > > > > > massive welfare state) the entire purpose is to eliminate the
> > > > > > > disparity of wealth of the upper classes (which has it all) against
> > > > > > > the lower classes (which has none) so that everyone has more or less
> > > > > > > what he needs but little beyond that (no one is wealthy). Capitalism
> > > > > > > *requires* wealth, and quite a lot of it,
> > > > > > You are still playing word games.
> > > > > According to you, any fixed conceptual meaning through an objective
> > > > > definiton of a word is "playing word games."
> > > > Word games to me is manipulatively ignoring context of what people say
> > > > in order to misrepresent their views.
> > > Words games to you is to ever present a fixed meaning of a concept
> > > represented in a word and to steer clear of a discussion of 'dark
> > > matter' when defining 'coercion'.
> > I acknowledge ambiguities where they exist.
> No, You concoct ambiguities where none exist.
> "To compel one do as he otherwise would not do" is not ambiguous,
You can cut and paste ad infinium but in practice it's is not a
complete conceptualization of the phenomena of coercion. Common
criminals, Nazis and Charles may all wish not to ever be
"to compelled to do as they otherwise would not do but life is
complicated and involved competing interests. Anyone that attempts
to obfuscate this complexity is just deluding themselves.
Communists loved their moral theories about alleged freedom just like
you. They actually framed communism as a greater freedom than our
current mixed economies much like you claim Rand's hypothetical
system. Until you realize that words are not yet fixed and theoretical
moral narratives don't necessarily equate to a better alternative, you
only come across as a close minded fanatic.
On Jun 19, 12:28 am, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
[snip]
Since you simply ignore the point about capitalism being
the only moral system, what am I to conclude? Do you
concede the point? Maybe you think it's too obviously
true to talk about.
Or maybe think it's too obviously false to talk about.
> Just a point about nomenclature. David Hume commented about ought
> versus is. If one is using the terms capitalism and socialism in some
> absolutist sense, then the wealth of today's world wasn't created by
> capitalist or socialist economies. It was created by mixed economies.
> Pure capitalism has never existed. Its only a theoretical that may or
> may not work. (much like communism was before the Soviet Union
> experimented with it)
And so? Are you trying to make some sort of point about
compromise? Are you trying to say we shouldn't strive for
principle or some such muck?
There have been plenty of variations on the degree of
capitalism (freedom) and statism (unfreedom) in lots
of countries around the world. Such variations are
available extensively, both between different countries,
and in individual countries from one time to another.
And over a very wide range of state involvement, from
almost nothing to pretty much totalitarian.
And it is pretty much determined that more freedom
means the same thing every time. Quite above and
beyond the additional freedom being much nicer,
the countries involved get richer when free.
Even if you follow Milton Friedman's path of "least harm"
rather than picking the moral system, you are led to
capitalism pretty quickly. And a pretty "pure" form of
it at that.
Wealth was never created by economies. It was
created by people. Individual people doing productive
creative things, making productive creative agreements
with other individuals.
The reason freedom has anything to do with wealth is
in that process. A free mind is able to find the creative
things to do in order to be productive. Those who are
compelled to act can only do as they are compelled.
On Jun 19, 12:28 am, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
[snip]
Since you simply ignore the point about capitalism being
the only moral system, what am I to conclude? Do you
concede the point? Maybe you think it's too obviously
true to talk about.
-------------------
It's so obviously wrong that it doesn't deserve mention. You should try thinking instead of regurgitating, rand boy.
> On Jun 19, 12:28 am, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> [snip]
> Since you simply ignore the point about capitalism being
> the only moral system, what am I to conclude? Do you
> concede the point? Maybe you think it's too obviously
> true to talk about.
> Or maybe think it's too obviously false to talk about.
> > Just a point about nomenclature. David Hume commented about ought
> > versus is. If one is using the terms capitalism and socialism in some
> > absolutist sense, then the wealth of today's world wasn't created by
> > capitalist or socialist economies. It was created by mixed economies.
> > Pure capitalism has never existed. Its only a theoretical that may or
> > may not work. (much like communism was before the Soviet Union
> > experimented with it)
> And so? Are you trying to make some sort of point about
> compromise? Are you trying to say we shouldn't strive for
> principle or some such muck?
The point was there is a distinction between principles and good
principles... theoretical systems of government and actual systems of
government. Intellectual sneers at valid observations over
uncertainties only brings into question if someone has considered
those uncertainties or is more concerned with blindly defending their
world view.
For example, do you see America as a "true" capitalist state - or a
mixed economy? And if the latter, can you point to any "true"
capitalist state run entirely by Rand's principles? Or is asking for
empirical evidence of a functional pure capitalist state an
unreasonable request?
> There have been plenty of variations on the degree of
> capitalism (freedom) and statism (unfreedom) in lots
> of countries around the world. Such variations are
> available extensively, both between different countries,
> and in individual countries from one time to another.
> And over a very wide range of state involvement, from
> almost nothing to pretty much totalitarian.
> And it is pretty much determined that more freedom
> means the same thing every time
If you first claim capitalism as a synonym for freedom then your point
is tautological. (i.e. There is more capitalism where there is more
capitalism)
> Wealth was never created by economies. It was
> created by people. Individual people doing productive
> creative things, making productive creative agreements
> with other individuals.
I mostly agree but would note there is a reason why individuals can
produce things today that they weren't capable of producing in earlier
periods.. Our actions are also influenced by technological and
political conditions around us. While Heraclitus once asserted we
never step into the same river twice rivers are still an observable
phenomena. Not to negate the importance of individuality but pure
individuality is an illusion of words. For instance, if you never
heard of Rand, you world view, and thus your actions, would likely be
at least a little different today right?
> The reason freedom has anything to do with wealth is
> in that process. A free mind is able to find the creative
> things to do in order to be productive.
I agree that more freedom is better than less freedom. The tricky part
is first defining freedom. Communists genuinely believed they were
freeing themselves circa 1917. Once they had made the word association
that their ethical system was synonymous with greater freedom it was
difficult for them to objectively see the potential pitfalls.
