Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the Only Moral System

Ehheh, you argue with an uncommitted socialist with enough logic he has to fall back on "might makes right".

Of course, against a well-educated student of (Karl) Marx, put head to head with a good student of objectivism (maybe Munro?) and eventually the argument turns down to reality is real vs. reality is not real outside of the subjective observer.

Seen it happen - each would reach the other's conclusions if he switched this fundamental belief, this was the line in the sand.

The core differences start here. Most don't get the time/inclination to think things out so default to socialism due to its subjective/emotional element.


I'm in the "reality is real" camp myself; but who each his own . . . . :(

Battler.
 
Battler wrote: Of course, against a well-educated student of (Karl) Marx, put head to head with a good student of objectivism (maybe Munro?) and eventually the argument turns down to reality is real vs. reality is not real outside of the subjective observer.

I'm not a Marxist, because I advocate market-based economies with socialist-style support systems; nor do I see a communist revolution as inevitable, as Marx did. Both Marx and Rand are too extreme for my tastes; I prefer a middle position.

For what it's worth, I pretty much believe that there is an objective reality. The computer keyboard I'm typing on is a real object, and would exist even if there was no one in the room observing it - that sort of thing. :)

Hutch wrote: The point is that they are not conveyed to us my a super-ordinate entity, such as society, least of all by a collective wish as expressed democratically.

I guess I don't see any "right" as existing without the means to defend that right - and for most of us, that means is the enforcement mechanisms of society around us. My "right" to vote comes from the fact that the society around me agrees that I have the right to vote, and has mechanisms to dissuade people who try to physically prevent me from voting.

How can a right be meaningful if it is not at least sometimes enforced?

The "right" to be free from want implies that, by virtue of being born, a person has a claim on the wealth of everyone else. This is a form of SLAVERY, when the economic output of the individual belongs to someone else.

Respectfully, Hutch, I disagree. Slavery is when one human being owns another; it is making a person property. Taking money from everyone for a collective social good is taxation, which makes some of your paycheck government property, but doesn't make you yourself government property. Or anyone's property.

Do you really think being forced to work for the rest of your life with no wages and no freedom to choose where to work, what work you do, whom you marry, how your children are raised, etc., is the same as having a few cents taken out of your paycheck for welfare?

--Amp

[This message has been edited by Ampersand (edited June 19, 2000).]
 
"How can a right be meaningful if it is not at least sometimes enforced?"

Ahh, finally language I like.


My "natural" rights step upon noones's toes. They are harmless to any separate individual. The enforcement of said rights are not to be left to the collective throng's whim or fears.

I claim them as my birthright in this life that I am truly blessed with.

I demand the same of any organized form of government: Do no harm.

I reserve via the lone entitlement of my existence to defend these rights and to elicit the cooperation of others in the preservation of our individual quests for harmless fulfillment :).

In other words, stay off my porch, leave me alone, or you will get bitten. Otherwise, we shall be fine neighbors.
 
No, Ampersand, you're not a "Marxist"; but I was talking Marx's philosophy more than the "manifesto".

No, you're more like a Fabian - they're the communists who "survived" - they actually hold a lot of power in British and Australian parliament directly, including some PMs like Whitlam (shut down govt. in Australia) and Blair. They're communists that realize that if they try to do things too quick the place turns into a mess. They also acknowledge that a slave that can keep a little teeny bit of his wealth will work a little harder than a slave who keeps none.

While they share a communist's contempt for personal property as such, they will allow pseudo-ownership so as to not disrupt infrastructure through destruction of existing institutions/businesses, or the gross inefficiencies brought about to the "collective"'s economy through having the stupid proletariat make business decisions, i.e. while they'll steal from the rich guy to give to someone useless, they don't want the idiot running the rich guy's business, unrolling the industrial revolution.

In short, they're communists with utter contempt for individual rights; but they balance that against ensuring they have some wealth to "redistribute" in the first place.


Battler.
 
Once one values the individual as an end in himself, there is no room for slavery, whether or not the master is an individual parasite or that "disembodied gargoyle known as society."

No one has a claim on anyone else's property except through voluntary trade to mutual advantage. It is not to my advantage to have any amount of my money taken from me to help subsidize a class of professional couch potatoes who do naught else but consume and produce another class of professional couch potatoes.

It is to my advantage to help moral people out in times of their distress. My reward is to see them overcome their difficulties, but paying taxes to subsidize the morally depraved due to their political weight is intolerable.

What's worse than a man with no pity? A man who will use another's pity as a weapon against him.

I am heartily sick of people manipulating my own virtue against me to my detriment.



[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited June 20, 2000).]
 
Like that animated pile of fecal matter, Tony Blair, once said "Why directy own it when you can regulate it?"
These neo-socialists have the same dislikes and the same goals. They've changed the packaging and adjectives, but it's the same big lie.

Capitalism + socialism = socialism.
 
O.K. I was going to stay out of this but . . .

Munroe, I don't want to subsidize generation after generation of professional couch potatoes either, but they will steal before they starve voluntarily. They're not just going away. Got a non-Hitlerian alternative?

The morally depraved are a different story. My state legislature just spent $5 million for a Disney-designed tribute to Billy Crystal's immigrant family in a private museum. They can all get religion or go to hell as far as I am concerned.

The problem with strict LF capitalism is that the economically weak are literally at the mercy of the economically strong, and their mercy is rare.

Whether you realize it or not, your recognized rights come from the constitution of the USA, and no other legal source. The US govt. is theoretically on the hook to defend you against infringement of those. Other moral rights you may claim are yours and yours alone to defend, and everyone else's to contest. Some people believe they should be allowed to take advantage of their power over others to better themselves. Tyrants are an example that spring to mind.

We live in a democratic society, a republic, constantly changing. The question is, what is the appropriate action when that republic is controlled by democratic policies that violate our basic legal, constitutional rights with impunity?

Thanks for a provocative post.

Ledbetter
 
The "starve or steal" argument can be answered quite concisely: empirically, the concept of starvation in the USA is a patent absurdity. Obesity is a major health problem for lower income folks.
As for the rest of it, well, the theoretical argument can be reduced to "Feed me or I'll kill you. Your money or your life." This is North Korea's game right now.

The only moral response can be "I'm not going to feed you, and I can't stop you from trying to kill me, but I can certainly stop you from succeeding." To such people there are no obligations except rational, moral, appropriate behavior, which is what everyone else owes to anyone else.
As to democratic policies violating our basic, legal, constitutional rights, well, isn't that what the Declaration of Independence is supposed to have cleared up?




[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited June 20, 2000).]
 
You should look up the Fabians on the net. They even have a magazine out with Blair on the cover in one issue telling us all what a great bunch of guys they are. I don't recall; but I think they are actually older than the Marxists.

Calling Tony Blair an animated pile of turd is an insult to animated piles of turd everywhere. Hearing him makes me queasy.


Battler.
 
Amp, this discussion is bifurcating. I maintain that real rights are in fact birthrights, as broadly identified in the Constitution. You seem to say that they are conferred upon the individual by society. The second leg of the argument regards the merits of the nanny state vs. LF capitalism. Lemme try the first branch.

If rights are conferred on the individual by the government/society, then by what authority do individuals resist the predations of said society? What was done to the Jews of Germany before the war was the will of the majority, and completely "legal" as that term was understood. What of Herr Golberg's right to life, liberty, etc.? The duly elected and installed government, operating with the approval of the majority (thanks to demagoguery (sp?))were systematically looting and expropriating Jewish business owners before the war. (Let's leave the Final Solution out of this. Too emotional). While I know you disapprove of these actions, how are they inconsistant with your theory that the only rights the Jews had were those conferred by the Reich?

Regarding the second argument, does confiscating the economic output (money) of the productive to give to the nonproductive = slavery? I must concur that it does NOT equal chattel slavery as was practiced in this country prior to the War between the States. I mean no disrespect in appropriating that term, slavery, and don't mean to belittle the suffering and anquish of those held by slaveowners.

That being said, allow me to sum up our disagreement, as I understand it. You are convinced that unencumbered capitalism creates unacceptable disparities in wealth, and that the poor are exploited by the wealthy, and that taxation for the purposes of income redistribution (my addendum: By gunpoint, if necessary) is required to redress this. Feel free to correct me if I am too glib, here.

My belief is this. While LF capitalists may in fact amass great wealth, the do so by creating wealth that would otherwise not exist. Please, don't bring up the robber barons of the late 19th Century. They were state capitalist, or demi-fascists, as far as I'm concerned. JD Rockefeller is quoted to have said "competition is a sin". As long as any capitalist or entrepreneur may not compel me to do business with them AT GUNPOINT, then I am free to choose other vendors, or to do without. Further point here: Wealth in this country is not a zero-sum game. What the entrepreneur gains is not necessarily at the direct loss of others in the economy.

My summary is this. While you may decry the disparity of wealth results from capitalism in this country, capitalists have never extorted (taxed) money at gunpoint from the public, much less kicked in doors and hauled people off to the camps. The same can't be said of many socialist governments.
 
Mr. Williams
I have disagreed with your stance on some of the libertarian party's views, and will probably do so again in the future. However, I have really enjoyed your posts on this issue.

Respectfully

------------------
Rob
From the Committee to Use Proffesional Politicians as Lab Animals
-------------------------------------------------------------------
She doesn't have bad dreams because she's made of plastic...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
bad Kiki! No karaoke in the house!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Flynt is right. You guys stink!!!
 
I'm not really a slave, I'm only a 40% (ignoring inflation/money meddling by govt) slave, and my master lets me work wherever on the plantation I choose.


Battler.
 
I am undecided on many of these issues (thanks Munro, Ampersand and others for giving me waaaay too much to think about ;) ).

However, I can make an argument that the only human rights e.g. rights that a human has are those that she can enforce or have enforced for her. What we mean by "human rights", by contrast, seems to be those rights that we consider to be desirable AND that can be achieved by us, without coersing others. In that sense, life is a human right as it would require an outside intervention to end it but free health care is not as, in order to get that care, we would have to force someone else to provide it. Coming back to "my rights end where yours begin". Unfortunately, that is a big gray area and what I think is a harmless activity on my part may look like a threat or an imposiion to you. Back to where we started :(
 
According to the Declaration, we "..are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights...."

Whether or not the Creator is the God of the Bible or Aristotle's Unmoved Mover the concept remains the same: man is, by nature, free. His natural state of existence is liberty.
This leaves nothing for the state to endorse, rather, the individual endorses the state.

When rights are only those things a person can enforce then the unltimate validation is "might makes right," and we're suddenly propelled into Medieval Japan with everyone a hammer or a nail.

I'll post an Alan Keyes lecture on the Declaration of Independence and its relationship to the constitution later in this thread today. He can describe it much better than I can.
 
Excellent discussion!

A couple of interesting quotes to share!


"A free people must understand what freedom is. And in our present
situation the law must not be permitted to contribute to the
widespread confusion of liberty with licentiousness. Liberty is not an
abstract right to do whatever we feel like without regard to the
consequences. It especially does not mean this in those areas where
the consequence of abuse is to destroy liberty. If we want to hold on
to liberty, then we must limit those abuses that will destroy it. We
can't have it both ways. This means that at some level, in the laws of
a free society, limits must be set which respect the requirements of
freedom." --Alan Keyes

And one more:

Articulating our unalienable rights not as granted, but as affirmed,
established their existence prior to the U.S. Constitution.
Acknowledging God as the source of our unalienable rights placed those
rights forever beyond the reach of man. By the same token, if we
forsake God, those rights are no longer guaranteed. At once, they may
be discussed, debated, altered, eliminated. They become the
battleground of political activists, the plaything of demagogues."
--Balint Vazsonyi

ordo
 
This is the best analysis of the philosophy behind the Declaration and its relationship to the Constitution I've ever read: http://www.alankeyes.com/issues_and_speeches/transcripts/970221lecture.shtml

This man should be President. He is the only person I know who can smash liberalism/socialism back to the Age of Reason by identifying it as the irrational mental illness that it is.

[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited June 21, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top