Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.


Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Premise Checking Chris Trotter: Mining, Protest, Indigenous Rights, Externalities, Free Markets.



In his latest column, Chris Trotter has written on what he sees as a paradox within free markets. The below post is my rebuttal. (Minor qualification: it was written on a sunny Tuesday afternoon over a bottle of Mud House pinot gris, so is possibly wordier than otherwise.)

* * *

Chris, you've gone beyond question begging to premise begging, signified even in the language used: your premise is phrased entirely in the coercive paradigm of the Left, therefore using a lexicon anathema to a peace loving, force hating, free marketer, indeed, you’ve written your post in terms that are irrelevant to the thinking of free marketers. Your post demonstrates the paradox is in your thinking, not in free markets.

From the beginning you set up a hollow straw man when you set your premise as follows:


For prosperity to be guaranteed, argued the free marketeers, the power of the state must be curtailed, and its interfering hands forcefully removed from the economic levers.

The paradox of the free market lies in the political implications of those two words: “curtailed” and “forcefully”.


You then argue how, in your opinion, free markets 'paradoxically' require the use of state force, using as your proof the legal clampdown on protest against deep sea drilling off the east coast of New Zealand, to protect the activities of the big corporations involved. To surmise same, you plainly do not understand a free market, and the misunderstanding is on a more fundamental level than the usual Left confusion between our current crony capitalist systems, and true laissez faire capitalism (which is as sensible as comparing sea horses to horses).

I am a free marketer, thus  a classical liberal, thus a libertarian, thus a minarchist, which is to say I advocate a constitutional republic wherein the role of state is only to protect the individual from the initiation of force or fraud imposed by other individuals, groups, or most especially, government. That is, to uphold a transparent, non-arbitrary, rule of law (including a civil and criminal legal system), based at bottom always on a property right.

In the context of the above there is first no question of having to ‘curtail’ government, or 'forcefully' remove government from the economic levers - though that latter point, incidentally, and only slightly off topic, shows where your thinking is further wrong in your premise setting: you, as with Keynesian socialism, are adrift from reality at the get-go in your illusion held regarding supposed economic aggregates, for there is no macro in economics, there are no 'levers'; the free market is merely an expression of the needs and desires of the individuals in a society, and the meeting place where such needs and desires are voluntarily, peacefully resolved  – a free market exists in its workings only on the micro level, and with such a complexity, the oaf central planner will always destroy it. That's precisely why governments thinking they can 'pull levers' cause so much damage in the lives of individuals.

Um, returning to my point :)

A properly constituted - both meanings - government doesn't have to be 'forced' or 'curtailed', because nor does it ‘force’ or ‘curtail’ a society; if it has come to that point, then it's already outside the free marketers premise of what a limited government is about: property rights. Your paradox – which I’ll soon define in concrete terms via the example you use - comes from your misconception of the ethos of a free market: philosophically and politically there are no contradictions such as you suggest in the workings of free markets, per se, as they exist on voluntarism, not the use of force that the entirety of the Left politick is founded on. Indeed it's their lack of contradiction that brought me over to the politics (libertarianism/classical liberalism), philosophy (are you sitting Chris, Objectivism), and economics (laissez faire) of a freedom ethic, intellectually; and driven to that by the glaring, lethal contradictions in the Left.

In other words, free markets are about peaceful, non-coerced living; a peace that is not possible under the Left - look at history. I’d go so far as to say the true expression of the 60's hippy/peace movement is laissez faire classical liberalism, not Left thuggish Big-Bossyism? In your Left paradigm the state is always the prime mover, master of all, in mine, my servant, protecting my property and my person only.

Regarding the specific case of deep sea mining you mention, in order to get to the instance of your paradox, we might in many ways have more agreement than you think: as I said above, the rule of law issues turn on what is considered a property right, and I think the property rights of indigenous peoples, or rather how our social democracies have dealt with them, are, frankly, a mess (a mess which has arisen historically from colonialism). I pretend to give no answers to those issues here. There is also the thorny issue of externalities such as Green Peace are concerned with, on which I am starting to think more and more, and with some trepidation, given the slippery slope they represent into subjectivity and away from an objective law. (The only solution for bringing externalities into the property rights field where they belong is good science, and then from there to the valuation problem). But my point here is you are confusing the debate over the role of government in a peaceful society, the nature of a property right, and the importance of property rights for a free society, with the nature of what a free market is, and the structuring of a properly constituted limited government that concerns itself only with the issues of rights. Your paradox is in the Reagan quotation you gave, ‘“Government isn’t the solution … Government is the problem.” Despite your paradigm trying to bend this backwards, you cite this mining/protest example whereby you believe government has egregiously overridden a group of rights in favour of big corporates - and I agree with you that governments are now sadly the chief abusers of property rights - yet your paradox is that you believe always in ever bigger, more omnipotent government as a solution (to governments being already so powerful, they destroy property rights, and in this case, possibly, freedom of speech and protest).

That’s nonsensical: the same type of nonsense homeopathy that has Keynesians religiously believing the problems of too much debt can be solved by more debt. These are amongst the myriad of paradoxes that plague the Left, and more aptly, statists, to the point that I’m sure in some more sensible age, rational people will view an historical belief in the Left politick and its theocracy of state, akin to a belief in Father Christmas. Although needless to say, this New Enlightenment of reason and healthy suspicion and limitation of all authority won’t be in my lifetime.

I put it to you that governments are now so huge, our welfare states exhausting so much wealth, up to 50% of the activity of our entire economies needed to feed an out of control state sector and force-fed dependency, that governments have had to become abusers of all our property rights, including our right of free speech and protest, to feed their voracious appetite for tax revenue which now makes all foreseeable generations tax slaves. The state, or more precisely, the authoritarian surveillance states now in place, have destroyed the Free West, and with that, civilisation.

As you started with Reagan, I’ll finish with him:  ‘It’s about up versus down, freedom versus statism’, … and every party in Parliament today is a party committed to statism, committed, thus, to coercion and the use of state force, with the price paid the destruction of liberty. National are as big a culprit in this as Labour and Greens are. The answer to it is free markets and a free people, and there is no paradox, which is why some few left of us, continue to strive for our freedom against that chief butcher of the twentieth century, the state, which you keep giving a free pass to, via the theft of redistribution.




Update 1: Chris’s Reply:

I've underlined and made bold the important part.

Chris Trotter said... 

I must say, Mark, I'm tempted to rebut your rebuttal, but experience has taught me there is nothing to be gained by doing so.

Those who believe as you do are simply not available to the sort of debate that takes as its starting point the reality of events in historical time and their continuing influence on the present and future.

This sort of debate assumes an opponent who exists in the same historical time-frame, and who is subject to the same physical laws as myself.

Which you do and are, of course, but, mysteriously, you don't think you do.

Yours is a strange Platonic sort of universe: a world of ideal concepts and forms - which simply doesn't respond to the logic of the gritty old world the rest of us inhabit - down here on Planet Earth.

So, I'll just say that I enjoyed your posting. It is, I reckon, a little masterpiece of its kind.

But, in terms of having a discussion about what really happens - or is likely to happen (out there on the high seas, for example) - there really isn't anything to get to grips with.

Like Plato's ideal chair, it looks very sturdy in my mind's eye, but, unfortunately, when I try it sit down on it there's simply nothing there.

150 comments:

  1. "In other words, free markets are about peaceful, non-coerced living."

    Now that deserves a yeah right. Libertarianism :-). Abandoned by its founder as unworkable, championed by someone who spent the last years of her life mooching off the state. It doesn't work. There are no free markets, the free market is an impossibility. It needs regulation to keep large companies from preventing competition for a start. The best products don't always rise to the top, otherwise we wouldn't be using Microsoft's operating system on our computers. The whole thing is just nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only point I'd pull you up on is you're talking about crony capitalism, and I'm as against that as you are.

      Though I'm quite happy with my mix of Microsoft and Apple technology.

      Delete
  2. Did we read the same Trotter blog? Seriously, you fell into becoming Fox(tm) news presenter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Seriously, why don't you try debating content, rather than this air-head ad hom. I dare you. Tell me how I've been reading a different piece? Ask me something, content related, that is intelligent?

      Delete
  3. Fascinating if wordy treatise of an Utopian society. As Chris says we all live in a real world. A world where without regulations, big companies would simply stifle competition.

    Your post reflects an idealogy where all companies big or small, are nice, gentle and honest creatures who wouldn't break any rule and would be completely straight up. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way and that is why we need regulations to control the companies. Who better than a Govt. with the testicular fortitude to make the right legislation and make sure that it is carried out.

    In such an economy as you suggest greed takes over. And greed is what destroys the peacefulness of any society.

    Incidentally, with your idea who pays for the Roading?, Street lighting? Health Care? Education? All the services we enjoy and rely on to make our living?

    Mr. Hubbard, your idealogy is Utopian and simply won't work in the real world I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Davo, you are too hung up on greed. There is the rule of law to police non-initiation of force principle.

      Do you want a society governed by state coercion, the Orwellian societies we're creating, or a peaceful, free society based on voluntarism?

      Delete
    2. Hung up on greed? Do you pay any attention to the world around you?

      Delete
    3. Do you ever dream of something better?

      Delete
  4. Orwell would have spat at the society you advocate, Mark.

    Libertarianism is the same as Stalinism. Both decimate the democratic will of the people and the tough and nasty rise to the top.

    How can you have powerful corporations free to promote what they will AND a republic severely limited in it's mandate. Those two poles of power existing without cronyist interaction between the two? That is unrealistic thinking on common human behaviour.

    The saving grace is that no one would vote for your society. The only people of any significance who favour such things are angry businessmen and they would depend upon Orwellian methods to enforce such tyranny on the rest of us.

    Andrew Mahon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew, kudos for posting under your name.

      Here's the thing; I don't want democracy, that tyranny of the majority mobocracy. I want my freedom, and your's, above the vote. I don't want to be beholden to the egos of politicians.

      A majority vote doesn't make something right, or moral: yes?

      There is no 'top' in a libertarian society. There are only individuals going about their pursuit of happiness.

      As a minarchist I want a society where the state is constitutionally bound only to protect my person and my rights, and polices the non-initiation of force principle, meaning my interaction with any corporate is only on the grounds of voluntarism. Unlike in our current surveillance states where government routinely usurps the rule of law - read my blog - the libertarian minarchy is based on the rule of law.

      Finally, your statement that libertarianism, that system of individual freedom, is the same as Stalinism, is beyond contempt in its shallowness and hypocrisy, yourself being the one who advocates the state as master over all individuals, presumably? Here's a challenge; read the powers of IRD under the Tax Administration Act, that department needed to run your view of the state, based on a theft of private property committed by the state daily, over and over, and you tell me which of us is representing Stalin.

      Delete
    2. IE, I want a society where I can do whatever the hell I like, so long as I don't initiate force on others. I want to live life like a grown up. And actually, I want the odd joint, without having to risk my career.

      Delete
  5. Thank you Mark.

    Just quickly I would like to say the state does not have total power - our three year term guarantees that social forces check and balance the power of the state. Not enough in my opinion.

    It is the people who ask for regulation to protect themselves from unjust practices from government and business and a liberal democratic social-democratic welfare state has provided more freedom and protection for the little man than any system in history.

    The libertarian ideology is simply not interested in the little man because it allows unchecked corporate power with no elected guardian of the peoples freedom and welfare to restrain it.

    Andrew Mahon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Libertarian ideology is only about each individual, and their pursuit of happiness beyond the sanctimonious morality of busy-bodies who would run their lives for them: nothing else.

      Regarding the three year term that is no protection from the Humphrey Appleby's in the permanent bureaucracies. Again, read the Tax Administration Act, or this post of mine:

      http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2012/10/a-riposte-to-jacinta-aderns-privacy.html

      Delete
    2. And what happens to those who fall by the wayside? Like Rand :-)

      Delete
    3. First, without welfare state, modern society would not be creating dependency, so not so many waysiders.

      Second, there is, of course, kind people and charity. I wouldn't let a person go wayside if I could stop it. Would you? Thing is though, private charity will be looking for permanent solutions.

      Delete
    4. Private charity won't work, for a number of reasons but one is that rich people have been shown to be me :-). But when you look at early modern Europe private charity was pretty much all there was, and it didn't work then either, which is why they moved to a governmental system, primitive though it might have been. And if you guys are so ethical, how come Rand mooched off the states of the last years of her life? As a matter of principle she should have relied on private charity. She didn't. Because right wing people are hypocrites, and will take anything the state gives them while bitching about giving to the poor. And why did the founder of libertarianism give up on it? Because it's impossible.

      Delete
    5. Dammit that should be mean, not me.

      Delete
    6. Here's what I have learned over my years, thus far.

      It is pointless to debate the conditions of the now, the technological twenty first century, with certainly pre-industrial Christian society, or industrialising society. There are no points of reference vis a vis economics or living standards.

      As I have said to (yet another) anonymous below, I believe in charity because I am charitable. Indeed, I have gained the wisdom over my life that those who proclaim most loudly about how uncharitable man is, are only talking from their own experience. This sadly seems to typify the Left, explaining why they believe the police states they've created are necessary to ensure people are forced to 'give' generously. So you are probably thinking of your miserly self?

      Regarding Rand, apart from the absurdity you appear to be blaming me for not supporting a brave intellectual who died what, fifty something years ago, I will instead simply expound my own principle. Within many single years my wife and I (full intellectual/business partnership) have paid enough tax to build a house with. We pay a proportionate huge amount of tax, every damned year. And all this tax to a system that I have virtually no agreement with: indeed, which I believe is creating the new violent society, the new Western gulags. So, you better believe when I'm 69 or whatever the age will be and I qualify for my state pension, that I'll be drawing it down: it will be a miserly tax refund, and I'll put it toward a use that will create the free society, not the police state of social(alist) democracy and ignoble dependency.

      Delete
    7. Nope, not speaking from my own miserly perspective er.. incidentally I thought you were against ad hominem attacks. But from serious scientific research which suggests that rich people do not contribute very much to charity. When they do contribute to charities it's more along the lines of educational institutions, opera houses and the like rather than actually giving to the poor. In other words things that people can slap their name on. And if history tells us anything, it tells us that human nature doesn't change. But I'm also talking about the lack of principle of right wing people. Did Rand live in a socialist society? Did her taxes go towards repression? America was pretty free market at the time, apart from obviously subsidising its farmers and a lot of corporate welfare, but you can't bitch about taxes and then run your hands with glee when you get the old age pension. Entitled to it though you may be.

      Delete
    8. Can you please cite the research? And does their 'giving' get calculated on both their donations plus the tax they've paid?

      Note none of this changes the morality of living free lives, or lives imprisoned in the minds of others.

      And again, I'm not right wing.

      Delete
    9. And are you saying I must submit to being forced to pay tax all my life to a system that is anathema to me, then must be principled and expect none of the provisions of that system my taxes were paid for?

      So when I have my first heart attack, despite I've paid for the public health system, I then have to pay again?

      Delete
    10. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-wwln-t.html?_r=0

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/richest-americans-charity-giving_n_2058547.html

      There's more if you have access to academic databases.

      And nope - just stop bitching about the taxes, which mean that everyone can have a heart attack not just the rich.

      Just a note on one of your other points - about history. Libertarianism seems to me to fit best a hunter gatherer society, and then only in times of plenty :-).

      Delete
    11. I'll have a proper look at links tomorrow, however, skimming, studies are not including taxes as part of charitable giving. Both with, and without taxes, 'rich' are giving more, far more, in dollar terms, and it's dollars that provide services and necessaries. So still the biggest givers.

      Also, what of the science? How many of the 'rich' are the business owners and managers risking their capital to provide jobs? To that extent reinvesting earnings in their businesses is improving the lot of all, butbthis will not be counted as charitable giving.

      Public health. We have a friend who can't even get on the list for a back operation so is selling property to go private; I'm not relying on the die while you wait system. Look at my byline above: Soviets thought they had free healthcare, but it ended up costing them everything they had.

      By your definition capitalist societies are 'hunter gather': look at the standard of living in capitalist societies over command economies; Soviets, North Korea, et al ... I'll take hunter gather thanks. And capitalist societies create their own times of plenty, while not fostering dependence, so charity not the vicious cycle of welfare. Though laissez faire societies are not as you would have readers think on them. The philosophy of a free life trumps slavery.

      But again, thanks for links, I'll have a study.

      Delete
    12. How many of the rich are parasites, who make their money like John Key or Mitt Romney? Currency trading must be the most useless job on earth, and Mitt gladly sacrificed jobs for profits.
      Public health? My wife just had a bad accident, it cost is nothing. In the states, people often have to bankrupt themselves to cope with this sort of thing. I would say that that example trumps yours given the rarity of having to sell property to get an operation in New Zealand. What about people who have no property to sell? Charity ain't gonna take care of them.
      And who said I'm advocating a command economy? I'm just advocating progressive rather than regressive taxes, and regulation to keep some sort of order among the capitalists. You mentioned externalities before. Capitalism from my memory of economics, doesn't handle externalities that well. At least in the sense of pollution. By the time capitalism has managed to price these properly, your environment is gone. Not to mention stuff like overfishing in the north Atlantic. Who knows when or if fish stocks will ever recover. Unregulated Capitalism did that.

      Delete
    13. Taking your points in sequence, firstly, those who are rich by speculation are less than those who are rich by providing goods and services that have increased the quality of lives of all of us. Your first statement is as shallow as me saying how many 'waysiders' supplement their income by crime, as if that tars all. (Also, much speculation comes from the asset bubbles built by the state fiat money printing programs that belong to the command economy, not laissez faire. Those same asset bubbles that burst in August 2008 are already being built again by the US exporting their huge quantitative easing program around the globe. A laissez faire economy would correct malinvestment quickly: compare this to the state bailouts - socialism for the rich - that have created zombie economies throughout much of Europe.)

      Your use of the US as example of private health is unfortunate given that country's state health sector by size would equate to the 8th biggest economy in the world. State involvement is responsible for their spiralling health costs. Similarly I've written on how the US is one of the world's biggest welfare states:

      http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/the-united-welfare-states-of-america.html

      The current controversy in the UK is over how many people the NHS is killing.

      Regarding your last point, as von Mises made clear, there is no third way between the free economy and the command economy, there is only one or the other. Our crony, fiat money, central banked economies are all command economies, given they're so saturated with taxation and regulation.

      Finally, it's always philosophy first. Progressive taxation, and there is no more ironic a term, is at bottom based on a violent theft carried out daily, that we have legislated the full apparatus of the surveillance and police state to enforce, and in a manner that will only get more draconian as the West bankrupts itself to debt, ensuring generation after generation to come of indentured tax slaves. Behind your every word is the clobbering fist of state. Regarding fisheries, I've never said freedom doesn't carry a price, but it's still the moral state over the surveillance state: yes, the price of freedom may be no fish. I believe man is rational, and this would not happen as it is ultimately not in his self-interest, and yes, again, externalities are a knotty issue, but it is not beyond science, and for me, the a-priori position is always a free society first, as history has shown us repeatedly the evil of the alternative when we are made slaves to the state and mindlessness of the mob.

      Delete
    14. Here's a wacky one for you on the matter of externalites - and by the way I wish you'd at least give yourself a handle so I can distinguish you from other anonymous posters.

      Externalites are ultimately driven, surely, by burgeoning population increase. To feed the world we have to fish, farm, mine, etc, more and more protein, resource, et al. In NZ the externalites from agriculture are set to get more problematic as the increasing demand for food increases the intensification required on a fixed land area to produce it. So when we discuss externalties, aren't we really discussing the need to become rational about world population?

      If you can wear that, then let's look at the irrational issues aiding population growth:

      Mysticism, definitely, in form of a Catholic Church preaching no birth control, particularly in third world. I think the chuch can wear a large part of the externalities bill.

      And then look at thses welfare states we've created: in NZ through DPB and WFF we actually subsidise having more and more babies. My circle of friends is reasonably comfortable; part of the reason for this is nearly all have a family size of one, or two children only - this is a rational choice to have a family size they can afford. Now every news story I read about poverty in NZ inevitably ends with poor families of six, seven, eight ... children. In fact I wrote on one such family here:

      http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2013/02/sorry-but-irresponsible-people-breeding.html

      Again, the command economy we run is not people thinking rationally, because they think they can divorce their decisions from market discipline: they can't, but the West is being broken economically and philosophically with them trying.

      Delete
    15. My so-called shallow statement was in response to your statement asking how many were providing jobs. That's just as shallow in my book, because as not everyone is bad obviously not everyone is good either. That's just a knee-jerk response to any criticism of business.

      As far as the US health system is concerned, as I understand it the main problem with spiralling health cost is not so much government involvement as the involvement of insurance companies, who give doctors no incentive not to do unnecessary stuff. But that's not the main problem the main problem is that private enterprise or private insurance system means that almost of necessity some people are not insured. And in the states that means they get sick, they go to a charity hospital, they are stabilised and sent away. That also adds to the cost because they come back again time after time. And let's just look abroad health outcomes. Countries such as France Scandinavian countries, various places with some form of state subsidised healthcare are healthier than those without.

      I agree with you about population but why do you have to bring up that old stereotype of people sitting around on the DPB with 8 or 9 kids. Pure sensationalism and yellow journalism. The situation is far more complicated than that as you should know. You're just bringing up the old right wing idea that there are thousands of people out there ripping off the system. Funny, when you look at it there aren't that many. And if there are I'm happy to pay for them as the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

      And why should I take anything that someone from the Austrian School of economics says as gospel? The whole idea is laughable.

      There are a number of people who consider taxation is violent theft, but the majority of us consider it a pretty much voluntary necessity. And you still haven't told me how voluntary charity is going to help. If you could come up with a historical example of it all a country that uses it and where it works then please do so. As a practical solution to poverty it's useless.

      I'll put a question to you that I I often put people. I have a pretty good idea of what would make me change my mind on libertarianism. What would make you change yours?

      Delete
    16. Dammit that should be
      If you could come up with a historical example of it OR a country that uses it and where it works then please do so.

      Delete
    17. I did read up on Scandinavian health systems some three or four years ago: they are not without their problems from memory, some large problems, but I can't remember the specifics (same with the oft quoted Canadian system).

      The Austrian School is the only school in economics that did and does predict events such as August 2008, and the only one that gives solutions. The government multiplier is a myth; the Keynesian homeopathy of treating debt by taking on more debt, insane.

      Um, (I'm in a hurry this post), re your first paragraph, where would we be without business?

      My comments about DPB are only sensationalist, perhaps, when you drop my further reference to WFF, which you did: that represents huge middle class welfare and subsidising of childbirth. Although if you read Lindsay Mitchel's blog the number of children being born to mother's already on DPB is alarming, and one child in five (at least) is born directly into a family on a benefit (not including WFF). Further, the evidence seems far more than mere anecdotal. I can't remember a piece I've read or viewed about poverty in New Zealand that hasn't included a preponderance, if not a totality, of large families, normally single parent. You might not like the fact of it, but it is what it is.

      Tax a 'voluntary necessity' ... really? Examine the mechanisms of the tax state and see if you still want to leave voluntary in that. Absurd.

      There has been no country run on libertarian principles, that, precisely, is the problem. Such a society, however, would not create dependency, which is what is breaking the West philosophically and economically. A Thomas Sowell quote is apt, here:

      "For the currently less fortunate members of society, the costs of envy can be especially high when it misdirects their conceptions and energies. Where poorer people are lacking in human capital – skills, education, discipline, foresight – one of the sources from which they can acquire these things are more prosperous people who have more of these various forms of human capital. This may happen directly through apprenticeship, advice, or formal tutelage, or it may happen indirectly through observation, reflection, and imitation. However, all these ways of advancing out of poverty can be short-circuited by an ideology of envy that attributes the greater prosperity of others to “exploitation” of people like themselves, to oppression, to bias, or unworthy motives such as “greed,” racism, and the like."

      You last question is an interesting one. I don't know. I have a deep-seated philosophical predilection to a free society, and am always gobsmacked at why I am in a very tiny minority. My first degree was Eng Lit and European history, so I know the evils of the state, that chief butchering machine of the twentieth century, and I think it prudent to give it no quarter and turn it back into my slave, not my master. Democracy is a mobocracy tyranny of the majority destroying us, first, from within our heads.

      Our entire discussion here breaks down to I am a free man, or a slave. And the answer when looking at your arguments, plus the law from the Fortress of Legislation, is indubitably I am a slave, who must be forced to sacrifice for your needs.

      Perhaps you're far too wrapped up in your thinking on how much charity would be required in a free market?

      Delete
    18. Oh, hello Bob.

      I probably won't be able to respond further today. Before some of my thinking takes me over to some type of dreadful ethical vegetarianism - I'm not kidding, unfortunately - I'm taking the pooch fishing, then drinking this evening.

      Delete
    19. Ah, so you are a true believer. In which case this will be my last post, because no matter what I say, you will not ever admit that I have made a good point. One good thing comes of this at least you have made me dig out my undergraduate economics textbooks.

      One thing I think libertarian all have in common l, from Penn Gillette to Michael Shermer – you have this incredible one dimensionality. For instance you talk about you prefer freedom to fish – as if they are the only 2 choices. There is no absolute freedom, even under libertarian system I presume there would be some sort of enforcement to stop you infringing on the rights of others. So there are only graduations of freedom. I prefer a lot of freedom and a fair amount of fish. Your system gives you the freedom to kill all the fish. And if you have no fish I suspect that freedom goes out of the window fairly quickly. :-)

      Secondly you all seem to blag on about coercion. It's a social contract. It's no different to buying insurance, or electricity, or services from an ISP. You don't get to negotiate the contract, but how often do you get to negotiate any of the other contracts you have to sign to live a reasonable life. In fact I doubt if insurance companies would want everybody negotiating an individual contract. That's why they tell you sign this or sod off. Just as you are free to approach another insurance company, you yourself are free to rennounce your citizenship and go and live somewhere else. Or you could buy an island and declare yourselves independent and live however you like. All you right wing people love to talk about choices. There are some of yours.

      You tend to forget that some people have very few. That's one of the essences of poverty according to Sen. Maybe you should give up reading Lindsay Mitchell and perhaps read a bit of him. A much bigger intellect I feel and with much more empathy in any libertarian I've ever come across.

      Delete
    20. PS - you should probably read Eric Hoffer's little gem too :-).

      Delete
    21. Between fishing and drinking. Caught one small herring if you’re interested. Threw him back. Pooch had an immensely good time.

      Regarding your post, no, I’m not one dimensional, Bob, you must be thinking of librarians, not libertarians. As an objectivist I do understand the reality of absolutes, and the evil of, say, moral relativity, however.

      In a libertarian mminarchy, as I have said in the original piece, the role of the small state is in enforcing the rule of law, which is the policing, largely, of the non-initiation of force principle, which redistribution is the antithesis of. In our social democracies, the rule of law has been usurped, read my blog, in order to accommodate wholly the redistributive mandate, which has turned us into the surveillance, police state. It’s been a travesty; every politician in the Fortress of Legislation in Wellingrad is a disgrace. Getting back to absolutes, as I have said on this thread, there is no middle way between a free economy and command economy, just as there is not middle way between a free society and a statist one. Mobocracy such as we have will always devolve to statist totalitarianism, as Daniel Horowitz succinctly points out:

      “We must understand that there is an imbalance of power in the political system of any democracy in that the forces of statism have an innate advantage over the defenders of freedom. It takes but one legislative or administrative victory for statism to succeed in guiding society on an indelible path towards dependency. We cannot perpetuate the free-market, but we can perpetuate statism by creating inveterate dependency constituencies. Statism enjoys the inherent advantage of self-perpetuation through its own pernicious activities that engender a continued need for the government programs.”

      http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2012/05/17/charting-a-path-to-reauthorizing-free-markets-and-ending-statism/

      Glad you mentioned the social contract, as no one in modern times understands what Rousseau, the originator of the term, actually meant by the social contract, and that certainly wasn’t the contract of a slave to master, plus it was a contract any individual could contract out of: not so in our modern surveillance states. I’ve covered this fully on my post here:

      ‘Rousseau and the Social Contract (1792): Clearing the Confusion.

      http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/rousseau-and-social-contract-1762.html

      Also related, my post ‘Brother’s Keeper = Brothers’ Slave:

      http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/brothers-keeper-brothers-slave_06.html

      You’re an intelligent man, so I won’t deal to your quip of me moving somewhere else, there is nowhere, I’ve said that, and the statement was below you.

      And your other serious mistake is calling me right wing: I’ve said throughout this thread I’m certainly not right wing (I just don’t happen to be left wing either) – shallow thinking again.

      It’s been great having you Bob. Come back and participate whenever you like. It’s been interesting.


      Delete
    22. As you know, forgive the typos. Wish Blogger had an comments edit function.

      Delete
    23. ... a comments, oh you get the point.

      Delete
    24. Just one or two minor points. Rousseau wasn't the originator of social contract theory, and I was using it in the more general sense that has evolved. And there is nowhere that operates on libertarian principles true, but there's no insurance company that'll negotiate contracts unless your VERY rich either. You still need to read Hoffer :-). Yes it has been interesting, but we're gonna end up talking past each other.

      Delete
    25. I enjoyed our conversation Bob. I better brush up on the books, myself, over the social contract.

      Delete
  6. I stand corrected. It seems you don't want unchecked corporate power. Just as much as is ideologically tasteful to you.

    You said yourself that the republic should protect the people from fraud and oppression. Mafia groups and firms get pretty crafty. Regulations and laws would build up pretty quickly if that protection were to be a reality.

    Can you trust an unelected group of judges to protect the people?

    Who oversees those judges?

    The people are the best protectors of their own welfare. This is the democratic and revolutionary spirit of the US constitution.

    Andrew Mahon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An independent judiciary, in their historical role as the buffer between the individual and the monarch/state is surely a better prospect than the tyranny of mobocracy.

      To be honest, the main issue that worries me about my advocacy of a constitutional republic, is how far big state Keynesian socialism has detoured the United Police States of America from the individualistic, classical liberal ethic of their constitution. If you read every other post in this blog, I've explained how that happened: as founder of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci said, grab the minds of the young in a state school system, and state tyranny won't need guns to keep the people enslaved.

      Delete
    2. Andrew, a final point, because I've got to hit the sack.

      I suspect you and I aren't far apart as regards your comments on monopolistic corporatism: to be honest while I'm a libertarian I have a very strong predilection toward anarcho-capitalism (with, regardless, a contradictory respect for intellectual copyright). However, regarding your own position:


      You want to replace the monopolistic corporation with a monopoly state that makes the law. Are you entirely comfortable with that? Isn't that worse (when you consider my vote is worth nothing)?

      Back to my position, I believe take the crony out of capitalism and deliver us to laissez faire, and monopoly corps aren't a problem.

      Delete
    3. Um, one more thing regarding your comments on Orwell. He's an enigma and contradiction from the point of view he was a socialist, who demonstrated beyond anyonewithout parallel, the evil that collectivism lead to.

      His novels fit far more comfortably with a classical liberal, rather than a Left, ethic.

      Delete
  7. Bwahaha. His DEEP sympathy was with the downtrodden. Orwell was about humanism. This is made clear over and over again in his best novels(in my opinion: Burmese Days, Keep the Aspidistra Flying and Homage to Catalonia).

    Your distrust of the will of the people put you in the camp of anti-humanism.

    Orwell was withering in his passion for democracy. He took a bullet for it Spain.

    Don't stray into literary criticism and claim to know the soul of someone like Orwell. Libertarianism doesn't believe in that sort of thing. You champion the mighty, the clever bourgeoisie. This is the class of people that excites the imaginations of the libertarians and classical liberal.

    Stalinism and libertarianism are essentially the same, both are systems that are vehicles for bullies to assert themselves.

    On your point that judges will solve everything. Judges can be bought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am most certainly a humanist. I believe in charity, because I believe in people, unlike the cynical left whom have such a fallen view of man, they need to create systemsof control that threaten always the Gulag, to make people give generously. I understand Orwell alright.

      Again, regarding your beef-witted comparison of libertarianism with Stalinism, how can there be bullies in a libertarian society that has it's ethic in voluntarism, with the only role of a limited state to uphold non-initiation of force or fraud principle?

      As compared to a Left state that is foundered on the ethic of the theocratic state as chief bully.

      Incidentally, I'm libertarian; that's not right wing, either.

      Delete
    2. By the way, I suggest you look up what a humanist is.

      Delete
  8. Mark, your position on Democratic rule is simple authoritarianism.

    Obviously we are talking about democratic government, not necessarily representative democratic government, which creates stringent limits on the democracy of the government.

    You claim to be a humanist, but refuse to have any faith in humanity, which would say that people should not be required to submit to authority but should be able to elect the conditions which govern society (a democracy). I hold on the contrary that nobody is required to submit to authority, so they must elect their conditions democratically.

    Obviously people should not be required to submit to Monarchy, or Theology, or Dictatorship, or Occupation, or Representation, or Technocracy but what authority do you require people to submit to? Well obviously its the system embedded into the Minarchist constitution which you would have imposed. The validity of such an authority, depends on its value. As is obvious to most people the value of the Minarchist constitution depends on its ability to impose 'laissez-faire' capitalism onto society, and for the many prognostications by economists about the results of such a system to bear reality. I think apparent to most readers would be that neither of these is a plausible result of such a constitution of society. How this could be construed to be Humanism is beyond me, because if the constitution is not to be interpreted its plainly a Technocratic form of government.

    You ask, "how can there be bullies in a libertarian society that has it's ethic in voluntarism", and the answer is simple of course simple enough for most people to grasp anyway. Because bullying is a part of human nature though I gather you would not call a society which failed to eliminate bullying a libertarian one. If bullying is an aspect of human nature, then plainly libertarian society is not humanist.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave"

    Its pretty clear the beginning of your tag line is inaccurate, nobody in the Soviet Union was so naive. Its possible after the coup that many people believed this is what their leaders would instigate, however Leninism and eventual Stalinism dispelled any illusions. In order to show this it suffices to observe that there was a revolt by the Hero's of the October revolution, in Kronstadt, which was put down by the Bolshevik government. Plainly even soon after inception the Bolshevik government reforms didn't align with the expectations of what kind of government was being set-up at all for these citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm a humanist because I believe in individual thought (rationalism) and evidence (empiricism) over authority and doctrine or faith.

    Democracy is immoral. The moral position is I be able to do whatever I damn well like so long as I am hurting no one else. Case in point, I have a 39 year friend with bone cancer, for whom the only relief that suits him, particularly, is cannabis, however, a democracy has voted by majority if he seeks such relief, he will be a criminal. Barbaric. We need to act like we're actually adults, grow up out of mobocracy to a civilised minarchy.

    1.34am ... Good night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regarding your second post, by literalness, you've literally missed the point.

      Delete
    2. "Regarding your second post, by literalness, you've literally missed the point."
      Yes I did miss the point. Clearly the point has nothing to do with historical perspective however, maybe you have some other version of history going on up top there, but such a fantasy is hardly worth discussing.

      Delete
    3. "I'm a humanist because I believe in individual thought (rationalism) and evidence (empiricism) over authority and doctrine or faith."

      Its kind of strange you claim to espouse Classical Liberalism then, because David Hume argued quite specifically against Rationalism, in his 'A Treatise of Human Nature'.

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

      Clearly you are getting confused between a Democracy and a Representative Democracy. There are fairly clear differences in the results each produces, as you explained previously.

      Dave: "so National only subscribes to democracy if it wants to? Isnt that closer to dictatorship"

      Mark: "Yes"

      http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/asset-sales-referendums-contradiction.html

      However if drug rules were democratically elected then that would be correct. To finish the argument Hume makes there is no other way to select ethical policy, because there is no rational basis for ethics.

      Delete
    4. I'm a classical liberal / libertarian, because I believe in an individualistic ethic over a collectivist one, which, given you seem so hung up on it, is one of the points of my byline; being where collectivism always leads to – enslaved individuals.

      I'm a man of the Enlightenment, that is, a humanist, also in the meld, that is a belief in rationalism. That is why I have absolutely no truck with that friendly Scotsman, David Hume, precisely, because he believed 'there was no rational basis for ethics, on which point he was pure evil. For this very reason, if you had looked deeper down the sidebar menu, you'll see one of the single-most biggest entries in my blog is a post wherein I pull the irrational llegs off Mr Hume:

      'Book Review: Jenny Erdal ... Deconstructing Hume':

      http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/book-review-jennie-erdal-missing-shade.html

      Quoting myself:

      "I shall go outside the text of the novel to get immediately to my central problem with Mr Hume:

      The rules of morality are not the conclusions of our reason." ¬ Daviid Hume

      In that single, small sentence, lies the gate open to fascism, communism, and every type of coercive mysticism that has ensured the field of human endeavour is strewn with the blood of free men. In that is the brute fist punching insanely at the heart of liberty, forever. Upon Hume's repudiation of reason there can be no civilising morality of man qua man, there can be no notion of that only economic system existing on the voluntary interactions of individuals, namely, laissez faire capitalism, without which, my pursuit of happiness is not even possible."

      (Continued next post …)

      Delete
    5. I'm enjoying your font of knowledge, Nic, but I wonder if you should invest some time in, at the least, briefing through my more important posts on that menu, in order to save us both some time here; there's very little I haven't defined myself on somewhere.

      Regarding your literalness, your Nicaralness, if someone broadly classifies themselves as 'National Party' does that mean they have to subscribe to 100% of National policy. I'm going to have to stop using otherwise such useful tags such as classical liberal, libertarian, if you keep approaching me with your formaldehyde like this

      Both representative and direct demomocracy boil down to the same thing: my life bound to a vote by the mobocracy over policy, be it either directly policy by policy, or some representative with their Koru Lounge key to completely misrepresent me in the Fortress of Legislation. Well done for knowing there are differences, however, I want my life entirely beyond the vote, thus I want a Libertarian system styled on minarchy (in my more depressing moments perhaps I even want that impossible to defend, figuratively and Niceraly, anacho-capitalism) ... I'm sure you've read the example I trot out on interest.co?

      Take a mob/democracy of ten people, four black people and six white people. The mobocracy decides to hold a vote on the proposition that white people have an entitlement to live off the efforts of black people via an income tax; the vote is won six votes to four. A democratically made, majority vote just enacted slavery of the type we have as the ruling redistributive ethic of the West now. Immoral; no thanks.

      Now finally, let's look at what you are prepared to do to my friend who is suffering, and he really is suffering, from bone cancer, because there is no better way to demonstrate your brand of democratic evil. As I said, in his particular case, he has found nothing better for his pain and nausea, through his chemo and the extraordinary pain of harvesting his stem cells, than a simple joint - not all that toxic, synthetic insanity from the dairies, but the natural plant you can grow in the garden that may well have many beneficial properties (unlike alcohol). Our mobocracy denies him this relief; even makes him a criminal for trying to source or use it. And your reply to him:

      "However if drug rules were democratically elected then that would be correct"

      So, complete strangers, despite having nothing vested in my friends pain, get to decide whether he is able to have comfort from his pain?

      Wow, Nic, wow, wow, wow. I can't think of a nice tag to classify you with on that sort of inhumanity.

      But thanks for this, I've just decided throwing my energy into a campaign for medicinal cannabis achieves a whole bunch of my other ends as well.

      Delete
    6. By the way, your view that my friend must suck up his pain because his democratically elected representatives misrepresenting everybody in pain that could be given comfort, say so, gets me back to the evil of Mr Hume.

      Delete
    7. I would like to point out that I premised that statement with a word, if. I also rejected that drug rules have been elected democratically, so don't confuse this with an expression of my own sentiments on your friends case.

      In fact I find it slightly odd, that you would appeal openly to a sentiment, my inhumanity to bolster your case. I suggest Hume was absolutely correct, sentiment plays a part in any basis for ethics.

      I don't think your examples of the immoral relations of democracy present a decent challenge. I have seen any number of similar anecdotes on this blog, but have not observed any similar phenomenon in history. The validity of such an anecdote rests on your personal interpretation of human nature, which is obviously incorrect.

      You can hardly reject that humans have both individual and collectivist parts to their nature, certainly not on any empirical basis, so rejecting that society be allowed to work in a collectivist manner is simply irrational.

      Delete
    8. If drug rules 'have not been elected democratically', then how have they come about in our democracy? Our representatives whom we voted for collectively enacted the appropriate criminalising legislation, yes? If such drug laws are found to be wanting, and in this case they are, woefully, then how do we change them as a democracy?

      If you're saying the representatives we vote in don't represent us as to our wishes regarding drug legislation, then that proves my point democracy is fundamentally flawed in morality.

      You just keep shifting any sticky question away from the system of democracy culpability, Nic.

      My examples, especially the latter one, certainly are a decent challenge, as that depicted how democracies can, and have, enacted injustice simply because a majority make it so. Your saying the examples don't represent a challenge is simply wrong. The most relevant example 'from history' being the tax extorted from me to support and grow a basis for society I have no moral, philosophical, or ethical agreement with.

      What does 'individuals have both individual and collectivist parts' mean? We are all individuals who live in a village: is that it? Well yes, I do live in the village, but my premise is the village does not own me, the distinct individual.

      (I see you've left out the social contract issue now).

      Reason will be tempered by experience and sentiment, lets call that emotion, obviously: but the important point is sentiment without reason is dangerous: there is certainly always reason to be applied. I made that point clearly in my review of Jenny Erdal and premise-checking of Hume. Our current welfare state is a fine example of legislation enacted on sentiment ... this woman, that man, needs a hand ... but without thinking how bedding this into the legislated free lunch would change how many people lived so they end up believing they are then entitled to the free lunch. Plenty of sentiment, no thinking about consequences (that requires the mind). And to fix the mess of welfare, the further application of sentiment, like the Keynesian further application of debt, will leave us as bankrupt as Greece.

      But I mainly want an answer to the first question. Your 'if' is a cop out. This is a representational democracy, we have law that states it is criminal to use cannabis, including for pain relief. Your 'if' is either redundant, or more likely symptomatic of the immorality of democracy under which my friend is a criminal simply by finding succour in a relief from his pain in which there are absolutely no victims.

      Cop out. Cop out. Your explanation please.

      Delete
    9. Forgot. Your statement:

      "To finish the argument Hume makes there is no other way to select ethical policy, because there is no rational basis for ethics."

      Precisely the evil of Hume. Because that has left my friend suffering. Reason says him using cannabis to relieve his pain has no victims or deleterious consequences and therefore is 'rational'. The whole argument boils down to that very simple equation performed in the mind (but not without sentiment for the appalling situation of a fellow human).

      Delete
    10. I made that statement which you are so hung up on, entirely hypothetically, in fact if I found your friend smoking I would not attempt to stop him or to have him arrested. A decision I would make regardless of his medical situation. You have probably also noticed members of the public smoking Cannabis in public in the past, obviously this says something about typical attitudes to Cannabis smoking. Even people who say its an appropriate rule will seldom act in this situation.

      What I was saying when I said that the policy had to be elected democratically, could be taken to mean that this rule was an important part of public good as has been elected. I think that's a pretty unlikely hypothetical scenario obviously, but if this was important then obviously there is going to be some kind of argument for why this elected rule is in the public interest. So in this situation its likely I would attempt to stop him smoking, or to hand them over to whatever authorities existed.

      Delete
    11. Of course there are obvious differences between a representative democracy and a democracy, which you don't appear to acknowledge exist, though you do know of them. The most important being in a democracy policy comes from the bottom, if a representative system is necessary for expediency, then the program of the representative is what is elected, the representative is of less importance and they should be subject to impeachment if they deviate from the program.

      Taking representative democracy as an abstract ideal, so similar to the system which one might think exists after a social studies course at school. As you mentioned, you don't need to agree with every part of the National parties program, in order to vote for them or even to be a member. Though it should be noted you apply responsibility to me for drug regulations or laws which I had absolutely no part in and don't agree with. The problem with a representative democracy is that parts of the parties program are set-up to appeal to only a tiny fraction of the electorate. They piggy back on or off the agenda depending where the most important issue appears to be. To give a concrete example, which you discussed, I think its clear that the National Party asset sales program is not part of the public agenda, however National were elected anyway because the alternative parties were considered a major threat to public finances. Unsurprisingly in this situation any kind of Cannabis reform is pretty much impossible, even though its of hardly of any importance to major agenda setters.

      Delete
    12. Thinking of representative democracy, as it actually functions even in New Zealand, the differences become more stark. Since parties and candidates have parts or even large parts of their agendas which don't appeal to the public their best strategy is not to be elected on them. The result is elections are usually run and won on personality over policy. Looking at a comparison of party policies during the previous election makes it very clear. In almost every category or the interest.co.nz site break down the National and Labour policies were 'no policy'. For the minor parties ACT, Greens, others... however they had policy selected on nearly everything. Of course the result is that the electorate is not informed about what policy they are electing even in the near term. In other words its likely that the more successful parties in a representative system will be the least democratic, not the most. The public understands this very well, and politicians feature among the least trust worthy members of society in most opinion polls.

      Further more this is discouraging, naturally so. Why would I expend any effort to change some rule if the likely result is that nothing will change. More concretely why bother calling for a law change, if the government is likely to ignore it anyway. Of course this discourages participation in politics, and leads to an under-reporting of the contrast between representative and democratically selected policy.

      Delete
    13. "What does 'individuals have both individual and collectivist parts' mean? We are all individuals who live in a village: is that it? Well yes, I do live in the village, but my premise is the village does not own me, the distinct individual."

      My statement was discussing your nature, so to say you have a collectivist part to your nature I meant that you are capable of some role as part of a collective. That is (I assume) you are capable of co-operation.

      Delete
    14. Jesus. What, ten comments. You've got more time than me. I've got to spend the day driving to Blenheim for supplies, I won!t get thru many of these b4 I leave, so it'll be next week.

      Delete
    15. Your first reply above is the deflection again.

      The question is it is due to our democracy my friend doesn't have legal access to medicinal cannabis. First you seemed to be saying our drug rules are not elected, now when I say that means representative democracy apparently isn't even representative, you deflect to saying that 'you' wouldn't stop him using it if you came across him personally.

      That is entirely not the point, nor that some people as a protest smoke publicly.

      The only point is it is illegal. Thousands of Kiwis have criminal convictions that hold their lives back over this victimless crime. Some, in exactly my friend's position have been taken thru the court system by the police, making them battle both their illnesses, and a repugnant law.

      We've had a message from our friend's mum who is now staying with him in a special, isolated facility after he has had an operation to have his stem cells (somehow) put back in his body. In his mum's words, 'there is so much pain he wants to die'. Does he have the option of cannabis at this facility? Of course not; the vote has been that is illegal.

      The only relevant point here is some type of vote of total strangers has led to people in pain not having cannabis in the armoury, and that's barbaric.

      I'll keep working thru your comments, but if they are all deflections and obfuscations like this one, then I've lost patience, and frankly, on this one I'm hoping mad.

      Delete
    16. Again, your reply on the difference between representative democracy and direct democracy, doesn't answer to my point against both systems. It is again obfuscation because in reality this is very simple. I am not, as an adult, free to do as I want so long as I harm no one else thru a combination of the voting for representatives by complete strangers, and those representatives 'both' going about their elected programs, 'and worse' apparently unelected programs.

      Simple as that. End of

      Delete
    17. Your third comment above is even further arguments 'against' representational democracy. Thanks for pointing out just how duplicitous this system is. I'll keep your points up my sleeve for use in other debates.

      Delete
    18. Your final comment above is reaffirming what I said. Yes, I am part of the village, but it doesn't own me. Note that under laissez faire the cooperation you rightly speak of is voluntary, compared to our current crony systems, and command economies, where all interaction is ultimately a matter of coercion.

      Delete
    19. Well clearly you don't understand, hypothetical statements can be considered to apply only given their premises. Further as I mentioned, the system of representative democracy which elected the present rules disconnects responsibility for their constitution from the electorate. In this case its obviously impossible to argue responsibility for the constitution of the rule applies to the electorate to any greater extent than they actually elected the rules.

      To take your own argument to extreme, I make you entirely responsible for the state of drug legislation in New Zealand. The fact you had no part in the constitution of the law is irrelevant. So do you consider this justice? Would you accept responsibility for this? No, you can't change it, your place is just to accept culpability.

      Well at least I can see what you are arguing now, you are arguing that allowing some people to make rules for others is immoral. This is plainly nonsense. A counter example, say some young child wants to wander onto a busy road, you prevent them creating a rule 'you will not wander out into harms way', apparently this is an immoral act? No, the authority itself is not immoral, though the acts of the authority may be immoral.

      Delete
    20. Oh for heavens sake; either by my reasoning, or your responsibility disconnect, because both are true, representational democracy is so flawed, it stands in the way of a peaceful, free society. Your arguments succeed only in proving the need for minarchy. I really don't know what you're trying to prove, other than my point.

      And politely note below, in my reply to your incorrect critique of my Hume critique, my point about how you do not use good faith in debating.

      Delete
    21. And I'm saying I can do whatever I like in a free society, so long as I don't initiate force on anyone else. The role of a parent is to protect a child from running onto roads, and exercise their judgement for their chidren as they teach their children ethics, morality, and sense.

      It's nothing more complicated than that, although note how the welfare state first destroys role of parents, then quality of parents.

      Delete
    22. ... That is, creating the rule/law 'it is illegal for a child to run in front of a car' has nothing to do with morality: it's just stupid. Though the dumbing down of the welfare state and the parent stock may, Rand help us, soon make such stupidity a reality.

      Delete
    23. Actually I said 'some young child' there is no parent relationship there or need not be. However apparently an adult who exercises their authority preventing the child from entering the dangerous traffic is perpetrating some degree of evil, apparently this was not an act of moral good in fact. Apparently also if they did it as parents then it has no moral value (a clemency of their evil deed?), it was simply part of their role.

      Clearly you need to address this point, which you have failed so far to do. I will repeat the point, "No, the authority itself is not immoral, though the acts of the authority may be immoral."

      I don't know why you started discussing law, this is plainly irrelevant here, its only one form of authority. Not every authority is or should be codified into law as you said yourself.

      Delete
    24. "Actually I said 'some young child' there is no parent relationship there or need not be."

      Meaningless literalness again. Making a supposed point when there is none to be made.

      "However apparently an adult who exercises their authority preventing the child from entering the dangerous traffic is perpetrating some degree of evil"

      No, a complete misrepresentation of what I've said above. Repeat which combination of words above you possibly achieved that falsehood from, because I've said the opposite: the role of a parent is to protect that child from the road? Surely you don't think I'm saying a parent teaching and stopping a child going on a road is an initiation of force? Because that would be clueless when context is considered.

      "No, the authority itself is not immoral, though the acts of the authority may be immoral."

      Thus my reason, one of the many, for why democracy is immoral, and the only moral, because free, society is a minarchy where I am not subject to such authority that can be abused. And that's before we even get to the consideration that some acts thought to be moral to the authority - criminalisation of medicinal cannabis - is not moral at all, because under the democratic system system you seem to be defending, the individual is imprisoned within the minds of others, and is not master of their own life.

      But here's the thing Nic, I'm both sick of this, and wanting to get onto other things: stand back from this obsessive, literal and too often context-dropping pin-picking, and make your next post a statement of what you are trying to prove on this thread, because I can't figure it out. Your intent seems to be to defend representational democracy over minarchy, but the majority of your arguments show only the flaws, indeed, immorality of the system you seem to be trying to defend?

      Delete
    25. You will have to excuse my habit (and continue to excuse it) of literally trying to write what I mean in this case. It's not something I will be moderating to your lower standards however.

      The reason I intentionally selected the example of 'some young child' is that it doesn't provide an out to argue that there is some role of parenthood which accords them responsibility, the exact out you attempted to invoke in fact. Well done, clearly the nature or possibility of a parent relationship is irrelevant in this example.

      "Surely you don't think I'm saying a parent teaching and stopping a child going on a road is an initiation of force?". Actually I suspect it probably would typically involve some force. Does that make the initiation of force moral or immoral? If it depends on the context then we must conclude that the initiation of force is arbitrary, neither moral nor immoral, but may be either depending on the context. If you are using the statement 'initiation of force' as a proxy for immoral then this is fine however in this case its entirely redundant to provide another name. Of course more strenuous examples could be given where the context more strongly effects the judgement of the initiation of force. Say for example the act of preventing a murder by force. Clearly a moral act, but depending on the context there is a significant amount of force available, at minimum assault, maybe even murder could be justified in this circumstance.

      Of course you constantly claim that authority is immoral. You say for example "Thus my reason, one of the many, for why democracy is immoral", the authority (allowing some to create democratically elected rules for others, is apparently immoral. This is not to say (and you didn't say) that the democracy committed any immoral acts. You didn't show (or give any argument for why) it must lead to immoral acts at all, you just stated its immoral. Another example, as you said "tyranny, or as Voltaire would say, atrocity." you claim the two are synonymous. A direct statement, tyranny an extreme case of authority is synonymous with atrocity, an extreme case of immorality. So palpably, yes, you did say exactly that.

      Delete
    26. The Rule of Law, itself, involved the admittance of force, and we need the rule of law: but it is a moral force after someone or group has already initiated force, so affecting another individual's freedom.


      Getting back to duplicity again, looking at page views, I suspect only myself and Nic are still on this thread, but if someone else is in here, can you please confirm I'm not losing my mind on the following:

      I said: "Thus my reason, one of the many, for why democracy is immoral, and the only moral, because free, society is a minarchy where I am not subject to such authority that can be abused. And that's before we even get to the consideration that some acts thought to be moral to the authority - criminalisation of medicinal cannabis - is not moral at all, because under the democratic system system you seem to be defending, the individual is imprisoned within the minds of others, and is not master of their own life."

      Nic's reply is: "Of course you constantly claim that authority is immoral. You say for example "Thus my reason, one of the many, for why democracy is immoral", the authority (allowing some to create democratically elected rules for others, is apparently immoral. This is not to say (and you didn't say) that the democracy committed any immoral acts. You didn't show (or give any argument for why) it must lead to immoral acts at all, you just stated its immoral. Another example, as you said "tyranny, or as Voltaire would say, atrocity." you claim the two are synonymous. A direct statement, tyranny an extreme case of authority is synonymous with atrocity, an extreme case of immorality. So palpably, yes, you did say exactly that."

      Does Nic's answer approach my paragraph in any meaningful way? I am completely confused by what Nic is trying to prove again.

      And my position on tyranny again: "You say a tyranny is not always immoral, I say it is because a free man must be master of his own destiny. You are becoming a moral vacuum, Nic ..."

      Does Nic actually ever answer to his in a meaningful way?

      Delete
    27. Clearly Mark its just man quo man,

      You placed a challenge,
      ""However apparently an adult who exercises their authority preventing the child from entering the dangerous traffic is perpetrating some degree of evil"

      No, a complete misrepresentation of what I've said above. Repeat which combination of words above you possibly achieved that falsehood from, because I've said the opposite: the role of a parent is to protect that child from the road?"

      and as I showed in my paragraph above, you do claim authority is evil, repeatedly. Ergo the authority used (either parenthood or I guess experience from age) to protect the child in this case, is also evil. However, I showed a case which nobody contends is evil, even you.

      This contradiction (I guess this last step could have been more obvious) you must address, probably be dropping the false premise, authority is evil as I discussed.


      Delete
    28. Complete tautology misrepresenting me as normal. Please see my final comment to your further comment below. For readers, read above discussion and make your own mind minds up on this.

      Delete
  11. "If you're saying the representatives we vote in don't represent us as to our wishes regarding drug legislation, then that proves my point democracy is fundamentally flawed in morality."

    I can't see the connection between the first and second part here. Any valid version of ethics assigns me culpability for my actions and the foreseeable consequences of those actions. You say that representatives can and do refuse to follow the will of the electorate, and then claim that this makes the electorate morally responsible for the leaders deceit. I would claim the opposite, the electorate are morally responsible for decisions they can and do make, not the ones they can't and don't. Though of course we should point out that applying ethics to a system is plainly nonsense. Morality can only be assigned to the participants in the system.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've answered to these points in the comment stream directly above.

      Delete
  12. "My examples, especially the latter one, certainly are a decent challenge, as that depicted how democracies can, and have, enacted injustice simply because a majority make it so. Your saying the examples don't represent a challenge is simply wrong. The most relevant example 'from history' being the tax extorted from me to support and grow a basis for society I have no moral, philosophical, or ethical agreement with."

    No, as I stated the examples you give are hypothetical and therefore entirely hang on your personal interpretation of human nature to actually occur.

    There are a multitude of differences between the example you gave and the imposition of tax, not least of which being that the representative system doesn't function as a democracy. Maybe as a counter you could show examples of the National government explanation of their October 2010 GST changes prior to the election? I submit this decision did not involve the electorate much at all and seldom do tax regulations do so. Ergo, the electorate is not morally responsible to a very large degree.

    Further more it seems that in the real world the electorate is not so hypocritical as to tax only one segment of the population. There are very few members of society who are exempt entirely from taxation as you point out many times of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, more arguments against representational democracy. See my answers in comment thread above.

      Delete
  13. "Reason will be tempered by experience and sentiment, lets call that emotion, obviously: but the important point is sentiment without reason is dangerous: there is certainly always reason to be applied."

    If this is a critique of what Hume wrote its a very weak one, because you simply repeat the argument that Hume was making. Ergo, your critique is simply a plagiarism of the argument you are claiming to be critical of.

    I further suggest that a claim that such an argument is 'evil' is irreconcilable with any notion of freedom of speech. Obviously you are just arguing one of nihilism or nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is probably what I have to continue with when I return from Blenheim.

      I note first from your (current) final comment below, you couldn't understand my critique: possibly, you did need to read the Erdal to get the context.

      No, Im making the opposing argument to Hume. Ethics can, and to avoid atrocity (Voltaire) must, be based on reason, and further this can only be on the basis of man qua man.

      I don't think I need do more than that io reply.

      ..... And now I'm being called. When I get back for rest.

      Delete
    2. Here, my critique of Hume: he believed ethics, morality could not be approached by reason; but he had to use reason to surmise that :)

      Delete
    3. Erdal was asking can languauge embody meaning; she used meaningful languauge to ask that question.

      Rand: there are no contradictions.

      Delete
    4. "Here, my critique of Hume: he believed ethics, morality could not be approached by reason; but he had to use reason to surmise that."

      You miss understood the argument he made then, he said that ethics were not the same as reason, and yes he had to use reason to surmise that.

      Delete
    5. You have this devious way about you Nic or re-wording my semantics, then insinuating I don't know what I'm talking about.

      For your 'if' above, note how I carefully used the word 'approached' in my critique.

      Now, sing along with me, one, two, three ...

      To say ethics are not the same as reason is to say ethics cannot be derived from reason, which gets us back to where I started: because of this Hume's unsound reason leads to evil, because ethics, morality must be based on human reason, on the basis of man qua man (not some dopey God).

      Delete
    6. No, you miss the point. He showed ethics were not the same as reason, and that therefore something had to be added to reason to form a basis for ethics. The thing he added was sentiment, so until you have a proof that sentiment is formed entirely from reason there is simply no contradiction there.

      In fact earlier at the beginning of this thread you plagiarised Hume's argument (claiming it was a critique), so if ethics are entirely derived from reason then to claim, "Reason will be tempered by experience and sentiment, lets call that emotion, obviously: but the important point is sentiment without reason is dangerous: there is certainly always reason to be applied.", leads to a contradiction.

      I expect at this point you want to restate the position you actually hold to be accurate, sentiment either is or is not required in a basis for ethics.

      Delete
    7. Hume set human reason as the advisor, only, to morality, not the decision maker. He sets that as something not really definable: sentiment, passion, et al

      The point is he de-throned reason, and getting back to my quotation, in that lay the gate open to tyranny, or as Voltaire would say, atrocity.

      Now, my response to your comment above, regarding the nature of the society you advocate. Go back to that so I can see what your starting point is.

      Delete
    8. Your statement remains a plagiarism of Hume, "Reason will be tempered by experience and sentiment, lets call that emotion, obviously: but the important point is sentiment without reason is dangerous: there is certainly always reason to be applied.", as you said Hume doesn't advocate sentiment without reason, he explains that ethical decisions ultimately rest on sentiment, that is sentiment is applied to the conclusions of reasoning to arrive at an ethical judgement. An important point, you claimed, or still claim, sentiment plays no part. So I repeat the question, is sentiment required or not required in the basis for ethics?

      As Voltaire said "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.". First of all I should point out that tyranny is not in itself an atrocity. In fact you asked me to clarify this further up the thread, tyranny an extreme form of authority is not inherently immoral, though the acts of the tyranny may be immoral. Well done you have essentially answered your own demand, you do see authority as immoral but incorrectly of course. However we should take Voltaire essentially literally in what he claims will be the result of the belief in absurdity.

      Clearly sentiment or passion is definable, otherwise how would be be communicating about it conceptually? There is also of course the question of its existence, do people act on their passions? I suggest they do. So sentiment is not in fact an absurdity. Its not an absurdity, even though its not particularly predictable by science (or reason as Hume showed). There are many things which are not particularly predictable by science in fact, this doesn't make them absurdities.

      Delete
    9. Re your first, a morality of man qua man must have reason ascendent on the throne: Hume de-thrones it. As proof of the why of this is your next paragraph.

      You say a tyranny is not always immoral, I say it is because a free man must be master of his own destiny. You are becoming a moral vacuum, Nic, who is still evading stating clearly your preferred basis of society?

      Delete
    10. I stated several times my preferred basis for society, 'democracy', you claimed fallaciously that this is essentially no different from 'representative democracy' though I showed a number of ways you accept, and even endorse that they are different. I don't understand why you are confused about this because I have been quite consistent on this point.

      Delete
    11. So you believe in full tyranny of the majority, then. Law, and morality, as voted policy by policy.

      Which gets back to my original example: you believe in the literal reading of this, as the basis to run a society?

      Repeat.

      Take a mob/democracy of ten people, four black people and six white people. The mobocracy decides to hold a vote on the proposition that white people have an entitlement to live off the efforts of black people via an income tax; the vote is won six votes to four. A democratically made, majority vote just enacted slavery of the type we have as the ruling redistributive ethic of the West now. Immoral; no thanks.

      Delete
    12. Of course I addressed this earlier, but you will be pleased to know you are absolutely correct.

      In your example (made up for obvious reason) you claim a certain nature for man. He is naturally repressive and immoral. Each of the 6 positive votes was faced with a moral and ethical dilemma and faced with this one they decided that slavery was justified (lets assume that the 4 black votes were the negative ones). In such a society in fact human nature dictates the limits of human freedom, nothing else can because there is no higher moral authority.

      You suggest this analogy is a true reflection of human nature, and I suggest then that this slave system forms a fit society for its inhabitants. However as earlier I also suggest you did not capture human nature in your analogy. In reality there are not such examples, and in the past social justice has been on the same side as the majority. Clearly if the 6 participants (or even a few of the 6) were of your nature (because you site an immoral construct) then the travesty does not happen.

      There are of course obvious examples of the contrary, tyrannical minorities who were against social justice. There are other examples, undemocratic systems of government which hoodwinked a majority through false premise.

      Delete
    13. I was not expressing nature about man in that example; I was demonstrating the evil in the mechanism of democracy. Indeed, my point is it's the Left whom have the cynical view of man: look at my discussion with Bob above.

      I'm happy to deal with you on further threads, but there is no further point on this thread. For the record, I don't view you as honourable; you twist and drop context.

      Delete
    14. Frankly I think calling time of the debate and appealing to the crowd is a rash decision. I think I made my case rather well, while your own discussion contains several internal contradictions (concerning your interpretation of Hume) where you apparently refute your own position on the nature of ethics. I am still not clear if that means you hold either, both or neither positions on the role of sentiment in morality.

      Of course your many anti-democratic analogies are of little value, they do assume an inherently evil nature to the participants, whatever evil outcome is the result of the electoral vote. Naturally if the participants agree that evil is the moral course (and why else would they vote for it? We assume they knew what they were voting for), then evil will be the outcome.

      Delete
    15. And again you do it. Reason has the ascendency in a morality of man qua man. You champion a system which is demonstrably evil. That is what I have demonstrated. I have not contradicted myself on the nature of ethics, that did not depend on me having to define Hume's indefinable: sentiment, passion, call it what you will.

      I know I'm not a stupid man, though sometimes prone to hubris. Yes; readers can judge this thread on its merits.

      Delete
    16. I considered your point, "a morality of man qua man must have reason ascendant on the throne", at first I was quite concerned. It seemed to me that you were arguing that sentiment (probably derived via empathy) is totally unnecessary for ethical decisions. This was reinforced by the statements that ethics was entirely derived from reason, implying that sentiment played no role. To me this appeared, still appears a horrific ethical wasteland anything is justifiable (as long as there is a rationale). There is no god, I could live with that, but now there is no morality either. I felt a cold chill to my very bones.

      Quite alarming too were the conclusions of psychologists, regarding the study of psychopathy.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Psychopathy

      Surely these could not be our ideal moral examples considering their apparent tendency to quite horrific acts.

      But then like a bolt from god it struck me, Louis 14th. A sense of clarity entered the phrase, reason must be ascendant on the throne. Reason must be ascendant as Louis (made dauphin at the age of 5) must be ascendant. As was true of Louis reign, impression is of great importance, as is reason in the construction of any argument. Reason of course is of great importance because the line of reasoning leads to a conclusion, the conclusion drawn from the reasoning. At this point we must be very careful that the right conclusions are drawn that is of great import. Suddenly it's not impossible for there to be a moral arbiter, the Mazarin of the argument, but the important point is that there must be a figurehead or justification for whatever personal ethics decides on the case. Of course the figurehead should be fit, Louis was fit because he was in apparent fact the son of God, a divine ruler of France, and Reason, well this is fit clearly so, it must be because its true. After all if anything is right, fit to decide matters it must be reasonable. If Mazarin doesn't like the conclusions then we must change the rationale with great pomp and ceremony, the important point being to point out artfully the rightness of the conclusion being drawn.

      What we have to remember is to ignore the moral arbiter, reason is ascendant on the throne, from this conclusions can be drawn. In fact Hume did dethrone reason, probably a case of seditious libel and therefore completely evil in nature. Its hardly surprising that we are appalled with the situation and loud cries may be heard to ring out to expunge the traitorous scum. A grand conclusion ensues, completely reconciling the conflicting positions, with ceremony fit for, and only fit for a monarch naturally.

      Delete
    17. As you can also observe, when it struck me, I was immediately won over to this way of thought!

      Delete
    18. Yes Nic, I certainly thought something had struck you.

      There's so much wrong with your clever conclusion, and much of the obiter, context dropping as is your MO, even if I thought something to be gained from it, I wouldn't have the time.

      Delete
    19. No, one thing: sentiment - define it, and what ethics based on it means ...

      http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/teaser-post-mindheart-dichotomy-feeling.html

      Delete
    20. Easy. Sentiment is an emotional response. The maybe derived directly from a feeling, pleasure, pain in the simplest sense. Though more complex emotions also occur in humans, love, hate, pride, passion, sadness, happiness.

      Also important is empathy, the ability to feel these relations as we anticipate they occur to another creature, based on our experience. We know that other creatures are capable of emotion and we empathise, sharing the emotional response with them.

      This is of course a part of our biology and the chemical reactions involved are complex, but clearly if we accept that we are part of the natural world (cautiously in the scientific sense of course), then the ultimate understanding of emotional response must be derived through the careful study of biology.

      Then ethics based on sentiment means that we should draw out some logical understanding of the consequences of some action, and consider the implications for those effected, and empathise and then having had this emotional response draw a judgement. Maybe an action should be undertaken in response to seek justice or to avoid future injustice, though clearly this depends on our influence, or potential influence over the events. In this regard however ultimately the emotional response is the arbiter. Having (and we should try to do this correctly) visualised the consequences of a particular action, or action we are considering, we can only emote how to respond to it. As I see it this is the nature of our human biology. Also notably psychopaths biologically lack this empathetic response, and this appears to re-enforce this conclusion about our nature.

      Maybe if we had a far greater understanding of biology a logical basis for ethical decision making could be made, but plainly in the present time we face exactly the same limitations Hume faced in his time and have a limited and personal understanding of human emotional response. Then again this level of understanding may be completely impossible to even approach.

      Delete
    21. "Easy. Sentiment is an emotional response. The maybe derived directly from a feeling, pleasure, pain in the simplest sense. Though more complex emotions also occur in humans, love, hate, pride, passion, sadness, happiness."

      So, ethics from the point of view of a sadist?

      Again my link:

      http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/teaser-post-mindheart-dichotomy-feeling.html

      Oh, no wait a minute, you then say, refuting Hume, reason must be applied to this, as per my definition of reason above somewhere.

      "Then ethics based on sentiment means that we should draw out some logical understanding of the consequences of some action, and consider the implications for those effected, and empathise and then having had this emotional response draw a judgement."

      This is the use of reason, then, on the basis of man qua man. As I've been saying all along. What the hell was all this about?

      ... Friends coming for lunch here in the Mahau.

      Delete
    22. You defy the definition of Sadism, most people don't get a strong pleasure response from seeing pain inflicted on others, its quite unusual. But if that is your understanding of human nature then I suggest you need to research the fact that your condition is not universal.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadism

      If you feel like committing a short survey on the subject why don't you ask your house guests if they are all sadists, or mostly sadists. Short of receiving a contradictory answer to your survey however I am happy to assume that they are not sadists.

      Clearly reason plays a role, even a primary one, but to use your own loose parlance it should clearly be sentiment ascendant on the throne. Or to contradict another of your statements, reason should temper the sentiment, Not "reason will be tempered by sentiment" this might lead you to get all pissed off for no reason, in the right circumstances. Though I grant in your original phrase, our ability to reason is derived from experience so this appears quite valid.

      Delete
    23. "Clearly reason plays a role, even a primary one ..."

      Yes. Yes. Reason, man qua man, including imputation of consequences. All this time you've been arguing with me, against Hume.

      Stunning. Did you read my link?

      Delete
    24. When I mentioned earlier, you had accidentally plagiarised Hume's argument, I meant you had plagiarised Hume's argument.

      The following conclusion is also drawn, if we assume that Rand has a refutation of Hume, you refuted your own argument leaving your actual position quite unclear regarding the role of sentiment. I however do not accept that Rand has any argument which refutes Hume, we should be clear on that point.

      I have read your post before, it's not of particular interest on this subject.

      Delete
    25. Here's where we disagree. You said:

      "Clearly reason plays a role, even a primary one, but to use your own loose parlance it should clearly be sentiment ascendant on the throne."

      I simply believe reason must be the guiding hand on the throne.

      The difference is as simple, but as important as that.

      You work yourself into an ethical vacuum.

      I to a minarchy and the peaceful, free society.

      Now I do have friends coming ... out of curiosity; don't you have a job to go to?

      Delete
    26. And by the way, contradiction: in your quote, how can reason be 'primary' while sentiment is 'ascendent'?

      Delete
    27. And also by the way, here's Nic the nasty context dropping piece of work again:

      "You defy the definition of Sadism, most people don't get a strong pleasure response from seeing pain inflicted on others, its quite unusual. But if that is your understanding of human nature then I suggest you need to research the fact that your condition is not universal."

      I never ever said that was a universal condition. I was getting at the mechanics of belief, again.

      You are either beyond contempt, or have taken context dropping literalness to a medical condition. Seriously.

      Delete
    28. I am having a hard time applying your analogy.

      If by guiding hand you mean just that some emotional response makes you feel bad, or good so reasonably then you are justified to respond to that feeling then in my opinion this is entirely redundant, feeling justified in a response is the natural reaction to any emotional experience, including an empathetic one as I see it.

      Under any other interpretation I don't see any role for sentiment at all in your method. Certainly having written the thinky-feely post you can't be saying that people should feel their logic out and then reason the decision without emotional response to the consequences of their emotional reasoning. Which appears a complete nonsense anyway, clearly you don't mean this.

      I am gainfully employed tomorrow morning.

      Delete
    29. "And by the way, contradiction: in your quote, how can reason be 'primary' while sentiment is 'ascendant'?"

      Primary: first in order.
      Ascendant: of highest import.

      Delete
    30. I simply mean we must apply our logical reasoning ability, assuming no mind/body dichotomy - note that bit - to the decisions we make, including in that the ambit of future consequences - which welfare state planners have ignored - and in morality always mindful of the non-initiation of force principle, and ethics and law based on man qua man, as the only basis on which a free society is possible.

      Our other basic difference is the a-priori one: you don't believe in the free society, but the sacrifice of individuals to the need of others, which rationale would state is barbaric.

      Difference between: 'First in order' and 'highest import'?

      Thank Rand you're going back to work tomorrow.

      Delete
    31. "Difference between: 'First in order' and 'highest import'?"

      Clearly the primary thing you do each day is get out of bed, it is therefore the most important thing you do with your day?

      Delete
    32. Its pretty clear with regard to anything the left offers up, regardless of how rational, you simply apply your mind/body dichotomy rationale and dismiss what is actually being said without reading. Of course the mind/body problem has nothing to do with most arguments anyway, so this assumption is for you completely unable to be contradicted.

      Delete
    33. One point to make about 'the Road to Serfdom' to which you like to allude, is that it is an analogy. As a wise man once wrote, you can prove anything by analogy, so this doesn't make it correct or relevant or useful.

      In fact Lord Keynes also wrote about Germany leading up to the second world war. Unlike Hayek however he pre-empted the rise of Fascism. In his 1919, 'The Economic Consequences of the Peace' he argued the problematic nature of the 'Treaty of Versailles' because of the disparity of the settlement terms. He also suggested this might lead to some form of political revolt from Germany and maybe a second war.

      Also relevant, as I mentioned, citizens of the USSR were under no miss apprehension as to the nature of their government was. The USSR was essentially totalitarian from the beginning as could be observed by looking at the course of Soviet history. Hayek's work can hardly be considered to apply in such cases, he was arguing that Western European governments would revert to totalitarian forms.

      Delete
    34. When trying to observe human nature, or course its rational to attempt to be somewhat scientific about the endeavour. At case, an important one, of moral reasoning concerns Vasili Arkhipov.

      At the time of the Cuban Missile crisis a number of Soviet Nuclear submarines were skirting Cuba. Because of their superior defensive technology this was with the awareness of the American navy and government. At some time shortly after the height of the crisis the captains of the Soviet Submarines, carrying Nuclear tipped Torpedo's were faced with a dilemma.

      They could complete their mission, with the consequences that this would almost certainly initiate a nuclear war. Or they could refuse to comply with their mission, and expect severe persecution from their own government.

      Under attack by depth charge, Vasili Arkhipov, the deciding vote in a three member committee, refused to start a nuclear war. I suggest he didn't have any rational reason but made the emotional judgement that this atrocity must be prevented from happening at his hands. He could not have been under any serious miss apprehension about the consequences of his decision for him.

      http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/10/31/cuban-missile-crisis-secret-revealed-four-soviet-submarines-came-within-moments-of-firing-nuclear-armed-torpedoes-at-u-s-fleet/

      Delete
    35. In the same period of history, intensely rational people were thinking about thermonuclear war. The conclusion of people like Herman Kahn was that a nuclear war was winnable. Conclusions drawn from the study of pure logical forms, game theory, possibly they drew the rational conclusion, though I doubt this could be accepted by most sane human beings.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation

      Delete
    36. "Thank Rand you're going back to work tomorrow."

      Praying to your false deity for a respite will do you no good.

      Delete
    37. To answer all your further points, some interesting, I'm following some of the links ... anyway, to answer all your further points, Vasili Arkhipov's decision was ultimately rational.

      Re your first post, The Road to Serfdom has documented very well the increasing lurch to statism in the West (look at my last post a time of posting this: http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/privacy-in-nz-this-weeks-signposts-on.html ).

      It is unsurprising Keynes got some things right, a pity he then fell into the trap Hayek showed of thinking he could solve the problems of big state socialism by more big state socialism.

      Re the last paragraph, I am of course referring to the wellspring of the revolution. But you knew that, of course.

      How's work working out?

      Delete
    38. "The Road to Serfdom has documented very well the increasing lurch to statism in the West"

      Clearly false, it's an analogy, it could not be said to document anything. If there is any reasoning that is that it 'predicts' the lurch to statism in the west. But this is difficult, one of the criticisms is that it apparently predicted the rise to fascism of countries like Sweden. Plainly false. Another issue is that it apparently claims that the rise to totalitarianism will be demanded by a large segment of the populous, as a response to the failures of planning.

      The problem with a lot of your reasoning is if you want to reason about something, you need to actually examine it. You can't treat it as a black box which is entirely undecipherable. If the conclusions of the reasoning apply, but the reasoning doesn't, then the argument is incorrectly applied. Its actually a failure in reasoning, despite this sites claim that it is steeped in some form of pure logic. Unfortunately that's a standard you apply to the reasoning of others, but not to your own reasoning.

      When I contrasted the reasoning of Hayek and Keynes, I pointed out that Keynes argument meets both conditions, while Hayek's doesn't (one might agree with his conclusion that the west is on the road to Surfdom). If Hayek's conclusion that the west was on the road to Surfdom were right the way this was reached was not.

      Delete
    39. It's been a great analogy of the lurch toward statism in the West: indeed a roadmap (excuse the pun). A majority of the population by voting always more state to fix the failures of planning, protesting all moves to less state, are indeed voting a move to greater and greater totalitarianism (and we already are a long way along that road.

      I'm using the remainder of my holiday to edit a novel I've just finished: how's work going?

      Delete
    40. It's clearly been a terribly analogy, on your own terms. Going back to Chris Trotter's blog you will see a brief (non polemic) discussion of Thatchers legacy.

      http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/staying-course-legacy-of-margaret.html

      " If the Keynesian economic policies that had underpinned thirty years of post-war prosperity no longer seemed to be working, the cure was generally supposed to lie in a shift to the Left – not in a lurch rightwards to the laissez-faire precepts of the Victorian era."

      So Chris Trotter points out that what, Hayek opposed in 'the Road to Surfdom', the system especially of economic military style planning was in fact drawing to its limitations. If the take 'the Road to Surfdom' as an analogy then, what we observe is that the UK's following Conservative term was some kind of totalitarian intervention. It was certainly somewhat popular (43.9% of the popular vote at its peak in 1979). I doubt this is the conclusion you are trying to draw, though I have also seen you deny that the financial liberalisation which was undertaken in this period represents a laissez-faire policy (which is somewhat confusing as to what is).

      As Trotter goes on to point out what Thatcher did was unite a number of dispirit political positions, while the left politic resorted to infighting. I think this is a correct statement of the politics at the time.

      What we see in Europe now however, in places like Greece, Spain is or appears very much to be a genuine resurgence of Fascism. That is hard to dispute, and its also quite clearly a response to the Austerity policies which are being imposed on many countries without significant popular support.

      A reading of the political situation in Germany prior to the second world war shows that the Nazi party had less than 3% of support in 1928, blowing up quickly to 44% in 1933.

      http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/rise_nazi_party.htm

      But this story is rather the antipathy of the Hayek analogy. The economic liberalisation policies imposed on Germany (and not supported by the Nazi's) were likely to shrink the governments influence on the German economy, not to increase it. America called in loans within 90 days, which required Austerity, which raised unemployment. The German economy collapsed, and unemployment soared.

      http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weimar_depression_1929.htm

      Hayek might be considered a discussion of the potential consequences of handing over absolute power to the state, but can hardly be relevant for national economic policy. In particular it speaks of the particular importance not of the size of the state but how democratic it is or is forced to be.

      Delete
    41. I've not had time to go back to the Trotter thread, though I wouldn't take his interpretation of economics. Hayek described very well howbthe state grows itself, always at the expense of liberty. In a similar manner my Horowitz quotation shows how statism has the inherent advantage over freedom by ever growing dependency.

      Too often currently austerity simply means tax increases rather than spending cuts: of course that makes matters worse. But I can post link after link on the validity of Austrian economics, true austerity, and how Thatcherism saved England's economy: the Left have forgotten what a basket case England was by end of 1970's. Before Thatcher's win, the German Chancellor had said England was economically third world again. And for all the bleating I see from the Left now about what she did to the miners, well the Left are welcome to see what happens if they reopen the mines and run at losses.

      Thatcher saved UK  from slow decline:

      http://www.cityam.com/article/thatcher-saved-uk-slow-decline

      Margaret Thatcher and the Battle of the 364 Keynesians:

      http://www.cato.org/blog/margaret-thatcher-battle-364-keynesians

      How Margaret Thatcher Brought Economic Freedom to Britain:

      http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/08/how-margaret-thatcher-brought-economic-f?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FArticles+%28Reason+Online+-+All+Articles+%28except+Hit+%26+Run+blog%29%29

      Margaret Thatcher: Right about nearly everything:

      http://www.niallferguson.com/journalism/journalism/margaret-thatcher-right-about-nearly-everything

      Even in my Twitter feed, I've got link on link. But as I said, I don't have time.

      Delete
    42. Oh, again. The importance of philosophy: it's about up versus down, freedom versus statism.

      Delete
    43. Thatcher saved the economy from slow decline, her economic policies accelerated the decline.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/datablog/2013/apr/08/britain-changed-margaret-thatcher-charts

      Hayek in his polemic indicated that the economy would function better on a free-market. What we observe from the data however is, massive interest rate instability, declining wages for the majority, growing inequality and a housing boom which started as she entered office and eventually popped in 2008. This accompanied by frequent crashes in the economy and growing instability. Its hardly surprising that the cost of living came down, the servant class were being remunerated poorly.

      Since you like house hold analogies for the economy, if you pay your children a smaller allowance and make them complete more house hold chores, then we could claim that this household is experiencing an economic miracle?

      Sensible people are hardly going to accept this policy on the grounds given, its incredibly bad for the vast majority.

      Delete
    44. Contextless again. In the face of your household example, then if the Left are right why don't we set the tax rate at 100% and see how the economy works out.

      Stupid, isn't it.

      Again, to say Thatcherism didn't save the economy of the UK, is to defy reality, Nic, because it is against the weight of evidence. The 2008 bust was from the bubbles caused by Keynesian socialism, the same bubbles Keynesian socialism is building all over again.

      You didn't read any more my links, did you?

      But more than anything, the importance of Thatcher was philosophic, as you will be able to read on my next blog post.

      Delete
    45. "In the face of your household example, then if the Left are right why don't we set the tax rate at 100% and see how the economy works out."

      What would that mean? Which needs of your children do you presently deny because they can't force the income out of your hands? Household analogies for the economy are nonsense.

      I read all your links, but I found them quite limited.

      Cato, notably an American source so not obligated to be constrained by facts, claims

      "Mrs. Thatcher was quickly vindicated. No sooner had the 364 affixed their signatures to that letter than the economy boomed. Confidence in the British economy was restored, and Mrs. Thatcher was able to introduce a long series of deep, free-market reforms"

      City AM, notably British contradicts very point,

      "But while Thatcher saved Britain, she also made mistakes." [Snip]
      "She was wrong to allow herself to be convinced to join the European exchange rate mechanism; together with a poor monetary policy by chancellor Lord Lawson, who allowed the broad money supply to rocket, this led to a boom in the late 1980's and another recession."

      Plainly charging the economy up on unsustainable inflationary booms is not considered a good thing across all conservatism.

      In fact the chart which I think that Cato wants to highlight are the 'Union membership', 'Inequality/GINI' and 'Cost of Living' charts. The only problem is that its not polity to mention in America that there is a class war going on. If the average American observes the course of the British economy, has an unusual parallel in the American economy, in terms of union membership rates, rise in inequality then they might realise this is not a historical accident but an intentional government policy. Sources who want to lionise Thatcher while not discussing her legacy and replacing it with propaganda are obviously not to be trusted and provide no useful information about Thatchers policies.

      Delete
    46. Yadda yadda. I'w watching Kiri Te Kanewa and some bald baritone, with a Wither Hills Chardonnay.

      Go read my Maggie post.

      Delete
    47. "But more than anything, the importance of Thatcher was philosophic, as you will be able to read on my next blog post."
      I have read this now, but was surprised to find out that it was not about Thatcher at all, it was about her corpse. Apparently the largest philosophic point made by Thatcher was made by her dying.

      Delete
    48. Oh dear, you've literally dropped the context again: and in an old lady's coffin.

      You seem half smart: what's the purpose of an orchestra conductor then?

      Delete
    49. Oh; Kiri has re-entered the stage wearing a lovely frock.

      Delete
    50. "Again, to say Thatcherism didn't save the economy of the UK, is to defy reality, Nic, because it is against the weight of evidence. The 2008 bust was from the bubbles caused by Keynesian socialism, the same bubbles Keynesian socialism is building all over again."

      Going back to the Guardians charts, one might ask when this horrendous Keynesian socialism was introduced. Because plainly since Thatcher left office there has been little change in the course of the economy. The main exceptions being, unemployment (which fell back until 2008), interest rates (have been lower and more stable), and house prices have gone through a second bubble (1992-2008).

      Otherwise, union membership has been low (and flat), inequality (flat and high), the poverty rate (flat and high).

      Now, if the government could control interest rates then I would agree with you that the 'Keynesian socialism' was implemented. But, what was done under Thatcher was the attempted (and failed) implementation of Monetarism. The consequences being obvious in the interest rate charts. After its failure the government simply left interest rates up to the market (and the official interest rate closely tracks the LIBOR rate). Here is a similar chart for the RBNZ showing the obvious link, http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/keygraphs/Fig7.html

      There is an obvious connection here to house prices, and I have explained the reasons for this to you previously. So ignoring the housing market (which was a market led phenomenon, the government ignored it) what horrendous change did the further governments make to the economy?

      Further more, its pretty plain that the Thatcher government introduced measures which were had a negative economic effect for the vast majority of citizens. Why should anybody in this situation decide that this free-market thing (which you called it) is good for them? Of course a majority don't, though plainly it was quite good if you are a London based money lender.

      Delete
    51. If the context is relevant, you should have discussed it as you said you would. What philosophic contribution did she present?

      You decided instead, to discuss the events surrounding her death, which is plainly irrelevant as she has been out of public for quite a time due to her illness.

      Delete
    52. No, you're reading with your blindfold on again. I said Maggie promoted individualism and the rule of law, over slavery and the viciousness of the mob.

      Are you with the street party rabble, Nic?

      Delete
    53. As I pointed out the atomisation of the 'individual' (and she didn't promote uniform individualism, only individualism to the part of the electorate which she didn't represent) has had a tremendous negative economic impact. Its also something which has not been reversed by the following governments. An impact which you promote as a positive thing (on philosophic grounds), apparently it 'saved the British economy'.

      We ask the question, why philosophically should the individual be committed to 'the saving of the British economy', when it will certainly have a negative impact on them economically. I should point out that this future was anticipated and known by those affected, they were no miss apprehension, and they were correct in their anticipation of future lower economic rewards for them. Surely you are not claiming there is some inherent positive value to the economy other than the economic well being it provides?

      Further more on your claiming she promoted the rule of law, is devoid of content. Every government is for the rule of law, the law is the governments best source of power. I doubt you were implying that she was pushing for more consolidation of government power, though that's obviously true. To say that she actually applied the law more fairly, the rule of law then meaning fair law, well this implies that she will be judged as encouraging justice. Basically the opposite is true, she was very divisive. That apart from the obvious direct cases such as shielding Pinochet from the judiciary.

      You continue to hide behind blank platitudes the ethical meaning of the narrative you want to present. If you want to say that there is positive moral value to an economy of greater income inequality, then you should state that point plainly. Failure to do so means you are attempting to divert from the true nature of the ethical judgement.

      "Are you with the street party rabble, Nic?" No. You decided to engage in political point scoring over Thatchers death, not me.

      Delete
    54. If you look up thread, I believe you brought up Maggie first.

      It's about statism or freedom. But you'll never get that.

      Income inequality: again, my byline. Thanks to the limited capatalism with it's innovation we've had, I've had more opportinity than my parents, etc.

      Regarding inequality, as Alan Reynold's said:

      "Measuring the growth of incomes or the inequality of incomes is a little like Olympic figure skating – full of dangerous leaps and twirls and not nearly as easy as it looks. Yet the growth and inequality of incomes are topics that seem to inspire many people to form very strong opinions about very weak statistics."

      I'm running out of time to edit my novel before I go back to the mill, so you're getting other people's wise words today.

      Continued ...

      Delete
    55. David Rose:

      "In his Dec. 20 op-ed “America’s Dangerous Powerball Economy,” Arthur Brooks quite correctly points out that earned income, indeed earned success generally, affects our happiness very differently than unearned income or success.

      I would like to extend his point further with something I’ve told my college students for years.

      In general, the creation of wealth is edifying. When only voluntary transactions are permitted, the creation of wealth requires cooperation, and this brings out the best in us.

      Piles of wealth, however, tend to be corrupting. The fixed nature of a pile is all about apportionment, not cooperation, and this zero-sum game tends to bring out the worst in us.

      It follows directly that no matter how noble the ends, government redistribution (which is hardly voluntary) tends to bring out the worst in us. Rising government redistribution over the past 75 years has produced ample evidence of this point.

      We are in this mess because we have allowed our culture to be dominated by those who are bent on spreading the false and self-serving narrative that our economy is a giant zero-sum game.

      As such, we might as well have the government do the dividing.

      Small wonder why our politics have become increasingly about who you are for rather than what you are for."

      Delete
    56. David Schmidtz, from Social and Individual Responsibility:

      "The gap between the incomes of the rich and the poor seems to have widened over the past thirty years. What does it mean? Does it mean some people’s incomes have always been high, other people’s will always be low, and the gap has widened in real terms? Or does it mean people who are young and poor now have better opportunities than young people had thirty years ago – people are earning more as they age than their counterparts earned thirty years ago, thus producing a gap between poor twenty-year-olds and rich fifty-year-olds that is larger now than it was thirty years ago?"

      Then Economist Donald Boudreaux on this quotation:

      "This question is vital, yet it is seldom asked. If the correct answer is the first that Schmidtz mentions, then people concerned about income inequality have a salient fact upon which to hang their concern (as well as to hang their proposals for income redistribution). But if the correct answer is the second that Schmidtz mentions — and this is the one that Schmidtz himself believes to be correct — the matter is entirely different. Same fact, entirely different conclusion — for if the second answer is correct, the bulk of people in the lowest income quintile at any time are made better off by the growing gap. In this case, proposals to close this gap through tax, welfare, and regulatory policies will reduce the welfare of most people whose incomes are currently low."

      Delete
    57. You want numbers, then in US context read Mark Perry:

      http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/income-inequality-can-be-explained-by-demographics-and-because-the-demographics-change-theres-income-mobility/#mbl

      "The good news is that the key demographic factors that explain differences in household income are not fixed over our lifetimes, which means that individuals and households are not destined to remain in a single income quintile forever. Fortunately, evidence shows that individuals and households move up and down the income quintiles over their lifetimes as the key demographic variables highlighted above change.

      It’s highly likely that most of today’s high-income, college-educated, married individuals who are now in their peak earning years were in a lower-income quintile in their prior, single younger years, before they acquired education and job experience. It’s also likely that individuals in today’s top income quintiles will move back down to a lower income quintile in the future in their retirement years, which is just part of the natural lifetime cycle of moving up and down the income quintiles for most Americans. So when we hear reports about an “income inequality crisis” in America, we should keep in mind that basic household demographics go a long way towards explaining the differences in household income in the United States. And because the key income-determining demographic variables change over a person’s life, so does income mobility."

      Delete
    58. But, it's about staism versus freedom.

      It's about a free, voluntary society, or a slave society.

      Quoting my last post, and you'll find this throughout my blog:

      http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/paean-to-individualism-maggie-thatchers.html

      "... when a society loses sight of the fact it is made up of individuals relating and transacting peacefully and voluntarily under the tenets of a classical liberal laissez faire, then it quickly slides into the barbarity of the collectivist Gulags that sickened the Free World throughout the twentieth century. Societies, which Maggie rightly saw as the enemy of freedom, that have not set their sights on the rule of law protecting their smallest minority, the individual, have allowed tyrants to bully them into wiping out the individual, en masse."

      And:

      "LudditeJourno’s remarks miss an important truth that I have yet to find someone from the Left who can comprehend: libertarians, those of us who want the small state and free lives, understand we live, as the cliché goes, ‘in the village’, we relish it, as we relish arts, culture, et al. The point of difference is we understand, as Orwell did above, all of this is only possible when the village doesn’t own us, as individuals: once that happens we are slaves, subject to the seemingly depthless viciousness of the mob mind.

      And if you want to know how vicious that barbarity of the collectivist based society LudditeJourno wants is, look at the vicious reaction of the Left on the death of this grand individual. Maggie understood this viciousness was precisely what individuals must be protected from, that’s why she espoused classical liberalism in much of her policy (not all of it)."

      Delete
    59. What I mean in the above is how redistributive law making is about the state invading and taking an individual's property, whereas in a free society, law is about protecting that property, and most particularly from the state.

      Delete
    60. This income inequality stuff is just pure spin. People recognise the problem, so the argument falls back to denying that the problem is a problem, but it is.

      "While a society with high levels of inequality could in theory also be a highly fluid one, the reality is that the more egalitarian countries (for example, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland) also tend to be the societies with the highest rates of social mobility."

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerome-karabel/grand-illusion-mobility-inequality-and-the-american-dream_b_1933238.html

      While the stories of Schmidtz and Bordeaux are opinion this story was actually based on research.

      The demographics story very miss-leading. Handily for Mark Perry's narrative there was a major shift in income inequality in the US, about 30 years ago. The people who were worst hit by this are not yet over 65. When they are retired, then their poverty will become serious. That's the kind of spin you expect from a right wing think tank of course.

      Delete
    61. You wrote the blog post, apparently inspired by my comment, but you wrote it. If you want to engage in political point scoring over her dead body, that is your choice.

      Chris Trotter managed to a more fitting eulogy to her legacy in fact.

      Delete
    62. "This income inequality stuff is just pure spin. People recognise the problem, so the argument falls back to denying that the problem is a problem, but it is."

      Says you, Nic, who's been spinning throughout this thread.. And I don't care whether you're right or wrong. If you're right then I'll simply say the inequality is caused by crony capitalism; or dependency grown by statism; .... etc, all points that are right. The fact is, even after the Keynesian bust, those on low incomes are still better off than their parents, and their parents before them.

      You believe in zero-sum: you're wrong. I want a free society and it's about freedom versus statism.

      In your final comment I see nasty Nic, yet again.

      And talking income inequality, you're investing a lot of time on this thread, so are obviously not too hard up? The Thatcher protestors, many so young they weren't even alive when she was PM, don't seem too hard up either: they certainly had enough money for booze. Ironically, that could largely be due to Maggie rescuing an economy Chancellor Helmut Schmidt called third world pre-1979, providing the tax take now for their benefits.

      Maggie was a rare thing, a radical Tory set on change, not a conservative, and perhaps one of her most surprising achievements was the change she made in New Labour which under Blair and after largely didn't change her reforms: didn't renationalise industries, didn't repower unions, because they knew to do so would be to enter third world status again.

      Delete
    63. This last post says rather a lot about your position in fact.

      "And I don't care whether you're right or wrong.", Clearly this blog doesn't have an obligation to the facts then. If however your intention is simply to spread propaganda for your agenda, then facts don't matter right or wrong facts.

      "If you're right then I'll simply say the inequality is caused by crony capitalism; or dependency grown by statism; .... etc, all points that are right. ", But clearly your opinion, what you say is beside the point, it can't change the actual nature of what we are discussing, and the rationale you give can't be modified to suite your conclusions without admitting your original reasoning was invalid.

      "Maggie was a rare thing, a radical Tory set on change, not a conservative, and perhaps one of her most surprising achievements was the change she made in New Labour which under Blair and after largely didn't change her reforms: didn't renationalise industries, didn't repower unions, because they knew to do so would be to enter third world status again.", drawing this point together with the previous paragraph we observe you say there has not been a significant change since Thatcher. In fact, if you were paying attention, I questioned if there had been an essential change since Thatcher. Because we both agree that there has been an economic collapse, it is worth trying to decipher why this occurred. You call it repeatedly Keynesian Socialism, while I simply say there has been no significant change in between her economics and the neo-liberal policies of the New Labour government which followed. Of course I find it hard to see beyond your label, Keynesian Socialism, to what this actually means. As I just said, the primary difference seems to be the side of the house from which the government comes. Its hard to see anything but economic partisanship in this position, surely what matters is what the government changes, not who is in office or who changes things.

      Going back to the Guardians charts in fact, what we observe is a housing bubble which began under Thatcher, though the second leg continued the trend. We also don't observe much change in inequality since she left office, GINI coefficients and poverty levels stayed fairly level since then. That absolutely undermines your statements that the inequality is primarily caused by the subsequent 'crony capitalism' and 'dependency grown by statism', though this might well apply with the removal of the word subsequent, and the addition of the point that Thatcherism exaggerated these more than subsequent policies.

      Delete
    64. "You believe in zero-sum: you're wrong.".

      In this discussion by David Brooks he points out that tax cuts, as much as tax increases are a zero sum game.

      "Unlike the supply-side argument, this is a straight zero-sum proposition. There's a pot of money and we should have it, not the folks in Washington. No wonder the polls show only moderate support for a tax cut. ''I want that money'' is not exactly an inspiring rallying cry or a coherent organizing principle for tax reform."

      http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/01/opinion/the-zero-sum-tax-cut.html

      So this takes us back to the apparently non zero sum economic game, a theory tested by the Reagan term. Looking at the data we see a telling fact however (which you are well aware of Mark). There was a massive rise in inequality under Reagan, the rising tide didn't lift all boats, more and more of the boats were left underwater (meaning in poverty in this case). Unfortunately the non-zero-sum game proves to be a loser for the vast majority of the electorate.

      Your statement, "The fact is, even after the Keynesian bust, those on low incomes are still better off than their parents, and their parents before them.", makes for a piss poor excuse for anything. At the point of abolition slaves in the US were far, far better off than the slaves at the time of Columbus. Of course this provides absolutely no justification for slavery as an institution. Stalin's modernisation within a generation had the same kind of economic results, would you use that justification for his totalitarian regime?

      Delete
    65. "In your final comment I see nasty Nic, yet again.", Yes I can see why you would be appalled at the concept of you being responsible for what you decide to write.

      Delete
    66. Nasty, nasty, nasty, Nic. Nic the Nasty. The contextless twisting and turning of every word. I've written my further reply at the end of this thread below.

      Delete
  14. "I'm a classical liberal / libertarian, because I believe in an individualistic ethic over a collectivist one"

    I think a key point to make is I also believe in an individualistic ethic, contrary to your claims. What I don't believe in however is that individual or collective action is ethically more desirable. You appear to think that that either individualistic action is always favourable to collective action. I disagree, if collective action will lead to better ethical outcomes then this is the more more moral course for the participants. In fact you would be hard pressed to find anybody who factually actually assigns ethics to any collective these days, though this is one of your own well charred straw men.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very quick reply: I believe in a free society based on small state and constitution that does one thing, ultimately: protect a societies smallest minority, the individual. Law must be based on that individual person; collective based law will always involve the enslavement of individuals to the will of others, at best, atrocity, at worst. Getting back to egs in this thread, our barbaric drug laws, and tax laws, are collective based; they do not allow for context of the individual.

      ... Gone.

      Delete
  15. For the record I tried reading your post on Erdal on Hume, but after a few paragraphs the words stopped having any connection between them. If I assume there is a thread of logic there then obviously I am missing most of the context necessary to understand, or I am simply too stupid to understand. Don't worry this is not something which I am very interested in rectifying. Mark, be sure to let me know any other pilers of classical liberal thought you also reject (and maybe do try to clear up my miss understanding around comment 2:46).

    ReplyDelete
  16. To Nic:

    I’ve barely read the last three of your posts above, only enough to see Nasty Nic twisting everything again. If I read them, I have to answer, that’s how I’m built. But I’ve set goals for work I want to get done on my holiday, and we have friends and their children coming for five days from Saturday, so, I no doubt will read your comments end of next week, but in the meantime, I’m working (possibly blogging) on my own ‘stuff’ … although …

    My ‘final’ word is you don’t seem to understand it’s always about philosophy, and always, again, about freedom versus statism. You morally lose this thread, and you will morally lose every thread you conduct for the following simple reason:

    I advocate a world where whatever you or others group-think, whatever claim you would put on my property, my labour, my mind for the common good, none of that affects me as I am free to do just whatever the hell I wish, so long as I harm no other individual or group. Conversely, you are free to do as you wish, as nothing I think or do is a claim on you. I advocate the peaceful, voluntary society.

    You, however, are arguing always for the forced institution of the claim at the gun of government. You advocate the world of the slave, the world turning on force and coercion, and nothing else. Your’s is a vicious society built on a violent theft, enacted every second of the day and night, on every individual. You always advocate the sacrifice of the individual to the mob.

    You lose morally, every damned time. And there is not a single valid argument you can raise against that.

    ReplyDelete