 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Economists All: What d'ya think? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 7/10/2010 4:49 PM (GMT -6) |   | |
Jeff: "Socialist States assume men can't be trusted to be free except for the most trivial of decisions."
Earl: Do you think ‘men’ can be trusted to freely choose a political-economic system over time via the democratic process?
If so, why is it that, historically, most democratic societies have, over time, chosen a highly regulated, ‘interventionist’ form of capitalism with some form of gun control laws (etc.)?
You seem to believe that government intervention is so obviously a bad thing that it can only be explained by the fact that our society consists largely of whiney babies with a sense of entitlement who are blind to basic ethical obligations and oblivious to the fact that they are being defrauded by their own government.
But what if interventionist government is just what most free persons really want? Would you be ok with that? Is it even conceivable to you that, in the long run, ordinary people have a "common sense" that practical justice matters more than libertarian ideology or "small government" rhetoric?
Perhaps our democratic society, in its collective wisdom, has weighed the real world impacts and has chosen a public policy that, to an limited extent, favors handicapped people at the expense of real estate developers and investors. We can debate the practical impacts of such a policy. But a purely ideological appeal to property rights would require the repeal of all building codes. Why do you think there is no popular movement to repeal all building codes? Why were building codes promulgated in the first place? Is it really because people are generally whiny babies with a sense of entitlement? Is it possible that most people just care more about promoting the public welfare than maximizing every last penny of the real estate investor's potential profit?
Of course, democratic societies do not always get it right. However, I'll take the Americans with Disabilities Act, based on the collective wisdom of a democratic society, over an ideological non-interventionism that is based on Walter Williams' demagaugery about not offending the hypothetical ditto head itching to get into a gun fight with the police. 
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/10/2010 5:03 PM (GMT -6) | | | Earl: Is it really because people are generally whiny babies with a sense of entitlement?
Jeff: Yes, it is. Because these things could have been done by the professing church a million times over without advocating a gun be put to the head of the involuntary. But they apparently can come up with money for all kinds of silliness day in and day out. This is where Greg is right. If the millions of professing humanitarians (Christian and otherwise) really believed their own rhetoric, they could do more voluntarily than those bloated bureaucracies which get their power by force over other humans.
Does this mean that the bloated bureaucracies do not constitute the lesser of evils, then. No, it doesn't. They may very well constitute the lesser of evils precisely BECAUSE so many people are whiney babies WITH overblown senses of entitlement and WITHOUT the capacity to be content without advocating force on their neighbors, as Paul enjoined. But a lesser of evils is STILL an EVIL!
Earl: Is it even conceivable to you that, in the long run, ordinary people have a "common sense" that practical justice matters more than libertarian ideology or "small government" rhetoric?
Jeff: Is it even conceivable to you that practical justice includes just consequences for doing evil (e.g., eye for eye, tooth for tooth, being content to reap what you SELFISHLY sowed instead of expecting others who prudently advised against it to bail you out)? The fact that Jesus advocated mercy on the part of INDIVIDUALS for the repentant and humble does not mean that he advocated anarchy in the sense of trying to undermine, by political advocacy, the legitimate DETERRANT role of the State.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/10/2010 5:42:36 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/10/2010 5:18 PM (GMT -6) | | | One more thing, Earl. When I speak of whiney babies, I'm not suggesting that there is such a thing as a human being that is NOT a whiney baby in some respect. All humans have weaknesses. And apart from grace, we whiney humans tend to be self-righteous enough to think that those that are strong where we are weak are the less virtuous, just as Paul indicates in Rom. 14.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/10/2010 5:37 PM (GMT -6) | | And so Earl attests to his willingness to use force to "get his way" (How more ideological can you get than that!)
Libertarian ideas NEVER force themselves on someone. They are advanced by argumentation and reliance on reality driven logic.
The simple fact that Earl even made a post means that he has implicitly consented to the rules of argumentation...BUT...he has also told us that when his argumentation does not get him what he wants...he will resort to FORCE.
And he hides his crime, like most all socialists, with an appeal to some group of unfortunates and how that he is more ethical towards them than those who dare oppose his socialistic policy objectives...thus obscuring his own true guilt.
When you enter a negotiation with a club in your hand...and then tell me that I am behaving unethically because I won't do socially something you think I should do (even if I am privately doing that very thing)...well, the mind shutters at the depths of confusion and just plain willingness to use violence to get your way. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/10/2010 5:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher: well, the mind shutters at the depths of confusion and just plain willingness to use violence to get your way.
Jeff: It is obvious that Paul sanctions the OT notion that the State is to use force to JUSTLY deter evil by rendering just consequences. But there is nothing in scripture that even HINTS that the State is to compel, by force, the redistribution of wealth. Not even in the Torah. Thus, the burden of proof is on those who advocate that kind of force. Appealing to mob rule is hardly an argument.
Consequently, your point is taken, Asher. When people feel comfortable advocating force without argument, even though the burden of proof is ON THEM, it does have implications. Especially when it is virtually impossible to tell what is the lesser of evils (or greater good) in a given election in the first place. Thus, what difference does it make if I'm libertarian unless some one can take my hand and show me how their vote produced the greatest good over the long haul.
I'm a libertarian. So for the most part, I don't vote, or I vote for a sure loser. How does that prove I'm wrong unless someone can prove that one person on the ballot was clearly the lesser of evils or the obvious greater positive good for the governed? But then ARGUE THAT! Show me I'm wrong about the ONE thing I have control over--who I vote for or whether I vote at all. It's not like libertarians are advocating force AGAINST the government. They pay their taxes, best I can tell, and are as law-abiding as the average collectivist, just like Paul advocates.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/10/2010 6:02:33 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/10/2010 8:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher,
Do you consider Democracy a form of coercion? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/10/2010 9:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel: "Do you consider Democracy a form of coercion?"
Not necessarily...but probably in most instances. The democracy itself is not the coercion. The coercion is that the majority forces it's will on the minority via threats of or use of force.
Basically, this is what needs to be kept in mind. 1) There is a basic component of any ethical system. It is briefly outlined in my previous post in this thread. (a. argumentation and b. all the preconditions of argumentation) 2) Those things ALONE do not a complete ethical system make...so to complete your system you must include other propositions. 3) When your other propositions conflict with someone else's other propositions...you must resort only to argumentation...even if you NEVER both agree... 4) To live in tension over things that have not been agreed to in the process of argumentation is the sine qua non of ethical behavior 5) This does not mean you cannot live by your own complete ethical system...it does mean you cannot require others to live by your complete ethical system.
So, if you have a democracy that is volunteerist and contractual through and through then there needn't be coercion in a democracy. The basics of ethics (argumentation and it's preconditions) can be required of all people. Anything more is only enforceable if it has been contractually agreed to. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/10/2010 9:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Me: The coercion is that the majority forces it's will on the minority via threats of or use of force.
And that's just a simplification of the actual process. It's more complex. More often than not, you have piece meal alliances in which sides develop that are more or less on the same side of dividing lines...but where any given groups primary allegiance is to a small portion of a platform, but they are willing to go along with the entire platform in order to get their slice through. So, in effect, it is almost always a minority that has leveraged a majority that then enforces it's ethics (or even just it's whims) upon the minority on the other side of the dividing line.
Witness the Democrat and Republican parties. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 7/10/2010 11:15 PM (GMT -6) | | What is a “democracy that is volunteerist and contractual through and through”?
Say that most of the people in a village are tired of slugging through the mud and they want to build a modern road and call it “Main Street”. How do they legitimately decide to build a public street? How do they decide on the street design and specifications? How do they pay for it?
Is unanimous agreement required? If so, what if they can’t reach a unanimous agreement? Does that mean no street? (So any proposal could be vetoed by one village idiot?) Or does it mean that the dissenters don’t have to pay for it? (In which case, the deadbeats are allowed to skate while the responsible citizens are forced to choose between subsidizing the others or no road). Here’s my “argumentation” against that system: It would discourage productive activity while rewarding bad faith and idle, irresponsible behavior. Thanks, but no thanks!
If unanimity is not required, then it's not “volunteerist and contractual” as far as the dissenters are concerned.
If you allow for representative democracy to satisfy the “volunteerist and contractual” requirement, that would legitimize any government intervention that results under the constitution and laws that are duly adopted.
So how do you propose that we can legitimately have public roads? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/11/2010 12:00 AM (GMT -6) | | There doesn't have to be public roads. Here's three proposals to solve the problem contractually.
1) Roads can be private. Anybody who wants a certain road in a certain place can get as many people who want to use the road to come together financially, buy the land, pay to build the road...viola...those who have an interest in there being a road in a certain place have their road.
2) One person who sees an opportunity where there is a place that a road would be useful, buys the land, builds the road, and charges tolls for the use of his road. He makes a profit, everyone benefits from his road that needs to use his road...but no one who doesn't need his road is forced to pay anything.
3) I have an extensive proposal that works for pretty much anything, roads included...and that complies with volunteerist, contractuality...and that makes use of "government" as a clearing house of sorts.
Many charitable organizations have pledge drives to finance their operations. Why can not a government that is committed to ethical behavior use the same apparatus to serve citizens? This way there can literally be any government "program" that anyone could possibly propose. But not funded by taxation...i.e. theft. Pledges can be taken to fund the program. And if you as a citizen find that that program is of value to you for whatever reason (1.of direct use to you, 2.to fulfill an aspect of your more fuller ethical system, etc) then you can pledge to help fund that program. That way programs that are in actual demand and that people are willing to fund with their own resources...not someone else's...can be enacted...and still comply with the no force requirement of ethics.
There is actually no such thing as public goods, when you think through the implications...if you also have a desire to remain ethical.
The fact that our whole system is rife with the unethical...and that most people acknowledge it's legitimacy...obscures the ethical implications. People just give up...in two ways...first, they resign themselves because there is little they can do...and because of that...they then make the new ethical standard equivalent to the then existing state of injustice...call that ETHICAL...and proceed from there. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 7/11/2010 12:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Asher, Good luck convincing anyone to go along with your transportation system. I generally object to idealist thinking that sounds good, but is too impractical. Your ideology is different: Although it is ridiculously impractical, it doesn't even sound good to begin with. (Btw, do you ever engage in theft by using public roads?)
Jeff: Is it even conceivable to you that practical justice includes just consequences for doing evil …?
Earl: I, along with Libertarians, approve of punishment of conduct that is malum in se (evil in itself), such as fraud, for example. However, for a variety of very practical reasons, laws that are designed to punish fraud after the fact are generally ineffective. That is, perpetrators are rarely punished and victims are rarely compensated based solely on the prohibition of malum in se conduct. To cite merely one example, even if a perpetrator commits classic securities fraud, it may be impossible for the victim to prove in court that the perpetrator lied (particularly if there are no enforceable standards for a written prospectus, etc.).
Thus, “interventionist” governments regulate publicly-traded securities by imposing requirements and standards for a written prospectus and various regulatory filings. These regulations prohibit conduct that is merely malum prohibitum. There is nothing instrinsically evil about failing to properly file an SEC form. Such a failure does not involve improper use of force and it does not necessarily mean that anyone is engaged in actual fraud. Therefore, on principal, libertarians must object.
However, the practical result of non-intervention, in the case of securities fraud, would be that perpetrators of fraud would be rarely punished, and victims rarely compensated. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/11/2010 2:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Right, so you give up and call the unethical ethical...and expect that you will somehow find a just society. So, I may be impractical (actually not though, the functions of all your so called public goods have all been done privately before)...but your position...as long as it seeks justice...is logically impossible. What you are referring to when you cite my impracticality is the fact that society is so populated by people such as yourself, who are unwilling to let the ethical restrain them, that the probability of doing things such as I suggest is approaching 0.
And another aspect of your position is that you contribute to the systematization of the use of force throughout society.
"Although it is ridiculously impractical, it doesn't even sound good to begin with. (Btw, do you ever engage in theft by using public roads?)"
Yes, it doesn't sound good to you because you are more concerned with getting your way...at whatever the cost...than being ethically constrained.
If there is no such thing as public goods (I maintain) then there is no crime committed.
If there is such a thing as public goods (you maintain) then I am as much a taxpaying part of the public as you (maybe more so, who knows)
Thou, Earl, art the man.Post Edited (Asher) : 7/11/2010 4:05:06 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/11/2010 9:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Earl: Thus, “interventionist” governments regulate publicly-traded securities by imposing requirements and standards for a written prospectus and various regulatory filings. These regulations prohibit conduct that is merely malum prohibitum. There is nothing instrinsically evil about failing to properly file an SEC form. Such a failure does not involve improper use of force and it does not necessarily mean that anyone is engaged in actual fraud. Therefore, on principal, libertarians must object.
Jeff: But our government shows its true colors when it not only gives tax breaks to investors and entrepeneurs to motivate certain kinds of activities, but turns around and BAILS them out when they act imprudently. Our government, like every government we know of, is UNJUST! They are bought and paid for, by and large, (with a few exceptions) BY the rich. There will always be loop holes in regulatory laws. And once you say that the filthy rich are too big to fail, despite their illegal and unethical money grabbing, the rich have essentially BOUGHT the government.
These kinds of injustices (subsidies followed by bailouts--e.g., protective tariffs for GM followed by bailouts to boot) are not defensible in terms of ethics. They are designed to lower deterrence that benefits ALL over the long run to render life less unpleasant in the here and now for SOME.
This is why I would say coercion is NOT the issue--if by coercion we're including punishment. Government, per se, is about coercion in large part (it is also to PRAISE the good). But God only authorized JUST coercion. How do you JUSTLY punish someone for being hypocritical in terms of not being charitable enough? Just fining the person and redistributing the money to those preferred by those currently in power is not justice. There is no way to make an argument for that. That's why, though it may be hard to prove some higher up person in Firestone knew that his tires were defective prior to selling them and causing fatal accidents, once you DO prove it with evidence considered sufficient, YOU KILL THAT PERSON as a deterrent to those who are considering the same kinds of insanity for the sake of illegitimate profits. And you do it in a way that brings PUBLIC SHAME to him, as well. That really DOES deter. But have you ever seen OUR government do that? Of COURSE NOT! They're afraid THEY might end up receiving just consequences for THEIR actions by that standard of justice.
And you don't give them subsidies in the first place. And you ENCOURAGE collective bargaining to help prevent monopolies, but you don't SUBSIDIZE unions either directly, or indirectly by protective tariffs, UNLESS it's an industry that is essential to national security--and even then, you do everything necessary to render that protected status as fair as possible FOR that industry. But what ends up happening is that these policies become tools for BUYING VOTES. And that's why the injustice gets greater and greater over time. Because partisan politics is such that vote buying is NECESSARY for the parties to prevail over one another.
You don't redistribute wealth to motivate. You DETER! That's all scripture ever said God authorized human government to do. He doesn't even allow individuals to avenge themselves AT ALL despite any short term deterrence that might result in! So it's not like God is so worried about wrong-relating that He sacrifices the civilized conditions of future generations to the ease of life of any collection of current individuals. What God is trying to do with the State is PROLONG the creational project by helping it avoid the kind of ultimate corruption it attained prior to the authorization of the State, which corrruption was so extreme that it said "it repented God that He had made man."
But it's only natural that those in power, being sinful humans, will wield that power in THEIR self-interest at the expense of the legitimate interests of FUTURE generations. Why is that the least bit surprising? Why is it surprising that voters will do the same with the power of their own vote? PEOPLE ARE SINFUL! If people weren't overly selfish, we wouldn't even NEED government to prolong the creational project in the first place.
So again, I bring it back home. How is that I can make a positive difference in any particular vote? You see, Earl, both parties are collectivists. They've both adopted the very kind of governmental policies you advocate. So the PRACTICAL question is not whether their policies are authorized by God, but how can I, INDIVIDUALLY, make the world a better place BY MY VOTE? I have no doubt that their policies are not authorized by God. But that's beside the point. There never HAS been and never WILL be a human government that will be completely just. All WE can do is try to determine what difference OUR actions can make and DO them. So how can I, INDIVIDUALLY, make a positive difference in an election? Is it just vote for the Democrat? The Republican? They both agree with you on our point of contention. So what is the REAL criteria for a particular election? How can we even measure the total consequences of laws once they are so far removed from just deterrence? I have NO IDEA! How do we measure the total effects of all the jealousy, envy, and resentment caused by the INJUSTICE caused by unjust laws (there is a reason why Jackson and Sharpton say "no justice, no peace!"--it's about what we know of HUMAN NATURE), not to mention the obvious, empirical effects!
Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/11/2010 9:30:45 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/11/2010 12:49 PM (GMT -6) | | I basically agree with Jeff, there is just some fine tuning differences and some ways in which we would agree about the same thing but explain that thing a little differently.
Jeff: "This is why I would say coercion is NOT the issue--if by coercion we're including punishment. Government, per se, is about coercion in large part (it is also to PRAISE the good). But God only authorized JUST coercion."
I have not explicitly made this statement, so it may appear that I disagree, but I do not. When I say that society can enforce the principles of Argumentation and all it's preconditions...I mean exactly what Jeff is saying. Initiation of force is what is prohibited. Responding to illicit force with just force is needed to maintain societal order, despite the illogical claims of pacifists.
And although it is a complex situation when you live in a society that is systemically unjust, simply to appealing to your vote, a vote amongst millions, and a vote that is rarely used excitedly doesn't show us that much. What would you do if yours was the ONLY vote...even if you could vote off the ballot...even if you could vote against the current political system...your intentions as expressed through both your speech and conduct are indicators of the justice of a governmental system that would be instituted by your sole vote alone.
And once any government has exceeded it's mandate (enforcing argumentation and it's preconditions) to such an extent that it is the primary violator of it's own mandate...it has lost legitimacy. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/13/2010 10:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's a huge problem in Marx's writings...and in pretty much every socialist writer that I have read...and socialists I have talked with...
They don't know the difference between capitalism and mercantilism!
Marx himself references aspects of both systems under the title "capitalism" He'll make reference to real capitalism. Later, reference mercantilism as "capitalism". And then later, say something to the equivalent of "And hence capitalism is evil"
A is capitalism
B is capitalism
A does x
B does y
y is evil and wrong
Capitalism is evil and wrong.
Here is a section from a paper by libertarian political philosopher David Osterfeld that details some of the differences between the two. Marxists, because of central tenets of Marxism, are cognitively blind to the difference...but yet, there is a difference...and to not account for it is 1) indicative of poor methodology in Marxist theoretical construction and 2) once the oversight is pointed out and Marxists are then asked how they will change their theories to account for the difference...and they stare in bewilderment...but don't change anything...indicates not just poor methodology, but bad faith. Here's the paper:
-------------
Capitalism and Mercantilism Compared
a. Exchange: Free Versus Restricted. Since values are subjective,
any voluntary, or free, exchange will take place only
when each participant expects to benefit, "The very fact that an
exchange takes place," writes Professor Rothbard, "demonstrates
that both parties benefit (or more strictly expect to
benefit) from the exchange." And, since the free market is
nothing more than "the array of all voluntary exchange that
takes place in the world," and since "every exchange demonstrates
a unanimity of benefit for both parties concerned, we
must conclude that," provided all major externalities have been
internalized, as they would be in a world of universal private
property, "the free market benefits all its participants" (1956, p.
250. Also see Mises 1966, p. 744).
It is true, of course, that businesses go bankrupt, expected
profits from investments do not always materialize and proffered
exchanges are sometimes rejected. But the claim is that
free exchange enables individuals to maximize their utility ex
ante. This is certainly consistent with bankruptcy, unprofitable
investments, the purchase of losing lottery tickets, etc. This
can be easily demonstrated. Assume that one has a .5 percent
chance of having an investment yield a profit and a .5 percent
chance of suffering a loss. If the individual believed that the
profit would increase his future utility more than a loss would
decrease it, the discounted present value of that investment
would be positive. This means that, regardless of the actual
outcome, the decision to invest would increase one's utility ex
ante even if it proved to be a mistaken choice and reduced it ex
post.
The situation is similar for rejected offers. If one's offer to
exchange is rejected his actual or real-world utility plane remains
unchanged. What has happened is that his hoped-for
increase in utility did not materialize; that is, his actual utility
plane is lower than his hoped-for or desired utility plane. Of
course, there must always be a discrepancy between one's actual
and one's desired utility. If this were not the case, if
everyone's desires were completely satisfied, all action would
cease, for any action, by definition, would then entail a reduction
in utility (Mises 1966, pp, 13-14).
Put differently, the free market operates to increase every
individual's actual utility plane. To complain of a discrepancy
between actual and desired utility is simply to complain that
one's desires have not been fully satisfied. But this complaint
reduces itself to the rather mundane observation more is better
than less, that abundance is better than scarcity. But scarcity,
like uncertainty, is an ineradicable element of nature that is
independent of any particular economic system.
But if the market maximizes individual and, by extension,
social utility, if all parties to a free exchange must benefit, it
follows that government restrictions on, and prohibitions of,
certain types of exchange must reduce at least one and perhaps
all parties' utility to below what it would have been on the
unhampered market. This is not to say that no one can benefit.
Obviously, the restriction will benefit some individuals, at least
in the short run, while hurting others. Thus, in contrast to
capitalism, in which any exchange implies a mutuality of benefit,
mercantilism is a system of exchange in which one party
benefits at the expense of the other party or parties. Put differently,
since interpersonal comparisons of utility cannot be
made, one can only discuss utility in a cardinal sense. This
means that since exchange under capitalism is voluntary and
therefore that both parties must benefit, capitalist exchange
can be described as positive-sum. In contrast, since, under
mercantilism, at least one party to the exchange must be
coerced, mercantilist exchange can be described as zero-sum.
In fact, when one also includes exchanges that would have been
made in the absence of mercantilist restrictions it is quite
possible that the result is actually negative-sum, i.e., that more
individuals are harmed by the restrictions on exchange than
are benefitted by it (Osterfeld 1988, pp. 79-92. Also see Rothbard,
1970b, p. 194).
In brief, exchange under mercantilism differs significantly
from exchange under capitalism.
b. Profit: Economic Versus Political. Since profits are a
subset of exchange, there is no fundamental difference between
the two. The free market is not a profit system but a profit and
loss system. Profits are earned by those who are able to satisfy
consumers' desires better and more cheaply than others; losses
are suffered by those who fail to serve the consumers. This
means that far from profits being obtained at the expense of the
consumers, the reverse is true: the more one serves the consumers
the more profit he will earn.
Profits, as Mises has noted (1969b, p. 119) are never normal.
They are an indication of maladjustment, of a difference
between the actual allocation of resources and the allocation
that would prevail if the wishes of the consumers were satisfied
to the fullest extent possible. Those entrepreneurs who are the
first to spot and act on the maladjustment are the ones who
earn profit. And they earn profit because their actions serve to
remove the maladjustment. Those who fail to spot the maladjustment
suffer losses. And if they continue to suffer losses they
will go bankrupt and their capital will be transferred to others
who are more adept at perceiving maladjustments. This can be
easily demonstrated. Assume that the market is in equilibrium.
Also assume that a new technological breakthrough has enabled
the production of a new commodity highly valued by
consumers. The production of the commodity, however, requires
the use of factor A. Those entrepreneurs who perceive this new
profit opportunity will begin to bid for the factor. The increased
competition for the available supply of A will cause its price to
rise, forcing some of the users of A to curtail their purchases.
But who will be the ones forced to curtail their purchases?
Clearly, it will be those employers of A who are receiving the
least remuneration for their product from the consumers, i.e.,
those who are employing A in its least productive area. In this
way units of factor A are channeled from uses that the consumers
value less highly into uses that they value more highly. But
further, the rise in the price and therefore the profit margins of
A will encourage other entrepreneurs, also anxious to make
profits, to expand the supply of A.
In short, "the only means to acquire wealth and to preserve
it, in an economy not adulterated by government-made privileges
and restrictions," Mises observed (1969a, p. 535), "is to
serve the consumers in the best and cheapest way." As soon as
the entrepreneurs fail to do so consumers will take their business
elsewhere. It is precisely the constant threat of loss that
insures that entrepreneurs remain responsive to the needs of
consumers.
It is much different under a mercantilist system characterized
by extensive government regulations and restrictions
including tariffs, subsidies, licensing restrictions and legal monopolies.
By granting such privileges to those groups favored
by government, others are forced to engage in activities they
consider less desirable than those they would have undertaken.
Moreover, freed from competition, and thus the need to serve
the consumers, the politically favored groups are able to turn
out shoddy merchandise at high prices. Thus, the privileged
groups are able to benefit themselves at the expense of the rest
of society. Finally, since government interference distorts the
operations of the market it must necessarily misallocate resources.
Since this will lower output, the long run effect is to
hurt everyone, even, in many cases, the initial beneficiaries of
the privileges, by reducing their standards of living to below
what they would have been on the free market.
But isn't it possible for a monopoly to emerge from the free
market and then to use its position to exploit consumers? It is
at least conceivable for a monopoly to emerge on the unhampered
market. But the only way for this to happen is for a firm
to have continually served consumers far better than any of its
competitors. If it would then decide to take advantage of its
new-found monopolistic position by raising prices and reducing
quality, it would immediately attract competitors anxious to
take advantage of the new profit opportunities, thereby forcing
the would-be monopoly to reduce its prices. The case of oil is
just one example. Aside from Standard Oil's unsuccessful attempt
to monopolize the market in the late nineteenth century,
there were numerous attempts in the early twentieth century
to cartelize the domestic oil market. But these voluntary agreements,
without exception, failed. In fact, by 1933 the price of
crude oil had fallen to $.25 a barrel. It was only when the
national government, with the passage of the National Recovery
Act in 1933 and the Transportation of Petroleum Products
Act in 1935, established a national Petroleum Code whose
enforcement arm was such state agencies as the Texas Railroad
Commission and Oklahoma's Corporation Commission, that
cartellization of the oil industry became effective. Since the
effectiveness of the cartel was directly dependent on intervention
by the government, the cartel was no longer voluntary but
coercive (see Osterfeld 1987). What is important is that this is
not unique to the oil industry. On the contrary, it has been the
monotonous story of all attempts to obtain "monopolistic profits"
on the unhampered market (see Armantano 1972; Kolko
1967; Osterfeld 1976).
Because it is a profit and loss system, profits, under capitalism,
are directly correlated with service to consumers. In contrast,
because of the network of restrictions and regulations
which reduces or even eliminates competition, mercantilism is
essentially a profit system, only. The possibility of loss is substantially
reduced. But the price of this reduction is that firms
no longer need to concern themselves with satisfying consumers.
Thus, in contrast to capitalism which correlates profits
with consumers' satisfaction, profits under mercantilism are at
the expense of the consumers. Put differently, the source of
profits under capitalism is the market; the source of profits
under mercantilism is the government.
c. Wages: Free Versus Restricted. Since wages, like profits,
are a particular type of exchange, the general principles
governing exchange apply here as well. Wage rates on the
unhampered market do not depend on the individual worker's
"productivity," but on the marginal productivity of labor. And
the marginal productivity of labor is a product of savings, on
the one hand, which creates additional capital and, on the
other, entrepreneurial activity which directs this additional
capital into the production of those goods and services most
urgently desired by consumers (Mises 1969b, p. 125). Wages
rise because, in order to take advantage of new profit opportunities
provided by additional capital entrepreneurs must bid
workers away from their current positions. As Mises has noted
(1956, pp. 88-89), there are many jobs in which the "productivity"
of the worker has remained unchanged for centuries. Those
of the barber, the butler and certain types of agricultural work
are cases in point. Yet, he observes,
the wage rates earned by all such workers are today much
higher than they were in the past. They are higher because
they are determined by the marginal productivity of labor. The
employer of a butler withholds this man from employment in
a factory and must therefore pay the equivalent of the increase
in output which the additional employment of one man in a
factory would bring about. It is not any merit on the part of
the butler that causes this rise in his wages, but the fact that
the increase in capital invested surpasses the increase in the
number of hands.
Far from the profits of the entrepreneur or the capitalist being
obtained at the expense of the worker the opposite is true.
Wages increase because, in order to capitalize on profit opportunities,
entrepreneurs must bid against one another in order
to acquire and retain the workers they need. The irony is that
while profits disappear as soon as the maladjustment is corrected,
the rise in wages tends to be permanent.
But in an interventionist system like mercantilism government
policy, as noted, is designed to keep wages low, to keep the
poor poor and the rich rich. Wage controls, licensing restrictions,
legal monopolies and the like, restrict the opportunities open to
workers, thereby reducing the demand for labor. The reduced
demand, in turn, reduces the wages that workers can command.
Moreover, the distortions induced by the intervention of
the government impedes the ability of the entrepreneurs to
direct capital into its most productive uses. Since this inefficiency
restricts the overall productivity of the economy, it
thereby harms practically all members of society, workers in
particular. Thus, while wages under capitalism are closely correlated
with profits, profits under mercantilism are obtained
largely at the expense not only of consumers but workers as
well.
d. Class Relations: Harmony Versus Conflict. A distinction
must be made between class and caste. A class is characterized
by movement between economic and social groups; a caste is
characterized by the absence of such movement. One born into
a caste is destined to remain in that caste for life.
It is clear that capitalism is a class system. Those born into
a particular class do not always remain in that class. On the
free market "rich men become poor men and poor men rich"
(Mises 1969c, p. 114). But the only way to become and remain
wealthy under capitalism is to serve others. The genius of the
market is precisely that it is able to correlate service with
wealth. The more valuable one's service, the wealthier one
becomes. The entrepreneur must offer goods and services that
consumers want to buy at prices that they are willing to pay.
Failure to do this will result in the loss of customers and,
ultimately, bankruptcy. But he must also offer wages that are
high enough to attract and keep the workers he needs to
produce those goods and services. Failure to do so will mean
the eventual loss of workers to other entrepreneurs and
therefore a reduction in the quantity or quality of his goods
and services. Once again, the ultimate result is bankruptcy.
Similarly, the market can also make poor people rich. There is
nothing to prevent any individual from saving or even borrowing
enough to invest in an existing business or opening a business
of his own. This is not to say that success is either easy or
guaranteed. Most businesses fail, at least in the long run. But
so long as one is able to provide products that consumers wish
to buy, the business will prosper and grow. Individuals such as
Carnegie, Rockefeller and Ford, to name but a few, all came
from humble beginnings. In fact, the vast majority of immigrants
to the relatively capitalistic United States were penniless
upon their arrival. This was a strictly temporary phase.
After adjusting to American life, which usually meant adjusting
to the shock of moving from a rural to an urban environment,
these individuals, and even entire ethnic and racial
groups such as the Jews, the Chinese, the Italians and the West
Indian blacks, to name but a few, began to ascend the economic
ladder, their places at the bottom being taken by succeeding
generations of immigrants. Thus, while there is a permanent
"bottom twenty percent" the individual occupants of that category
are constantly changing (Sowell 1981).
Under capitalism entrepreneurs compete against one another
to see who best,can serve the consumers. The effect of this
competition is to reduce the prices of the final goods and services.
Likewise, they compete against one another to obtain the
labor services they require. This competition forces wage rates
up. Similarly, consumers compete against one another driving
the prices of goods and services up, and workers compete
against one another for the available jobs, thereby reducing the
remuneration to labor. It is clear that while there is competition
within economic classes there is harmony between them.
Finally, it should be noted that while there is movement
between classes, the efficient allocation of resources insures
economic improvement which benefits all economic classes.
In short, far from a socially stratified society, capitalism is
characterized by constant movement between classes, the general
rise in the absolute position of all classes and class harmony.
In contrast since, under mercantilism, the class favored by
government is freed from competition and the threat of economic
loss, not only is it able to secure government privileges
which render its socio-economic position virtually unassailable
but, in the process, to benefit itself at the expense of the rest of
society. It is able to maintain its position at the top of the
economic ladder by obtaining political or government privileges
which have the effect of insuring that those at the bottom of the
ladder remain there. Conflict between economic groups is the
inevitable result. As Mises has put it (1978, pp. 3-4),
Under the free market the manufacturers of shoes are simply
competitors. They can be welded together into a group with
solidarity of interests only when privilege supervenes, e.g., a
tariff on shoes or a law discriminating against them for the
benefit of some other people.... Our age is full of serious
conflicts of economic interests. But these conflicts are not
inherent in the operation of the unhampered capitalist economy.
They are the necessary outcome of government policies
interfering with the operation of the market.... They are
brought about by the fact that mankind has gone back to group
privileges and thereby to a new caste system.
While the free market is characterized by the long run
harmony of interests of all citizens, mercantilism is a system
characterized by caste conflict and group antagonisms. As
Mises has tersely put it (1979, p. 7), "The belief that there
prevails an irreconcilable conflict of group interests is age-old.
It was the essential proposition, of mercantilist doctrine....
mercantilism was the philosophy of war."
d. Conclusion. Marx did not distinguish between mercantilism
and capitalism. But if the foregoing is at all correct, then
the differences between capitalism and mercantilism are far
greater than those between many of Marx's own non-commodity
modes of production. It is fair to say, therefore, that Marx's
taxonomy should have included mercantilism as a distinct
mode of production. And this inclusion, as will be seen, has
serious ramifications for Marx's entire socio-political analysis. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/13/2010 11:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Libertarian free-market capitalists (such as the Austrian-school economists) actually join with socialists in condemning the mercantilist system. But the socialists condemn mercantilist and capitalist alike. If a socialist could clearly see the difference between the two systems, the logical conclusion he should draw is to become a libertarian capitalist...IF...exploitation was truly what the socialist was condemning. But, when the socialist does not become a libertarian it reveals an aspect of what he is really about.
The one major structural difference between capitalism and mercantilism that makes each economic factor different between the two systems is.......government interference in the market. Government force is what safeguards the mercantilist system and it's exploitation...government force is what is condemned by libertarians....
It is pretty evident that the benefits of government force is what the socialists are primarily after.
Sure, they want government force to now be benefiting the Proletariat, instead of the Bourgeoisie as it does in mercantilism....but government force is the heart of their program the same as it is for the mercantilists.
Libertarians are the ones whose hands aren't blood guilty, lusting after the power to coerce other men. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/14/2010 3:38 PM (GMT -6) | | If you can solve this dilemma, without falliing into the traps that Karl Widerquist discusses in this paper then you've solved the blind spot of libertarians (they don't consider the distribution patterns of wealth).
This part shows by example how a state can come to have rights in all the
property in a nation and thus have the right to tax and regulate property without violating
the four principles of libertarian natural property rights. This story is meant to be taken as
literally and as seriously as the libertarian story connecting current title holders to
original appropriation.
Imagine an island called Britain. In the state of nature, all of the land is
appropriated by individuals following whatever rule of appropriation a libertarian reader
prefers. Economies of scale or astute entrepreneurship allow a relatively small number of
proprietors to control most property. Assume the Lockean proviso (however specified) is
satisfied. In this early stage, there is no government; each proprietor is sovereign over her
estate; according to Narveson, “property rights … are liberty rights. You may … do what
you wish with what is yours.”
From a similar starting point, Nozick traces the development of government from
voluntary for-profit protective associations. He shows that a government so constituted
must be a minimal state. Nozick’s argument is only applicable to a government so
constituted, but a union of protective associations is not the only legitimate state. Suppose
instead proprietors prefer to protect their own property without creating any protective
associations. Propertyless people come to proprietors offering their labor in exchange for
protection and access to resources. Each proprietor insists that tenants accept her as the
arbiter of disputes.
A proprietor makes different deals with different people. To some she sells
indefinite tenancy rights, a quasi-ownership called “title” that tenants can buy and sell
from each other, subject to the proprietor as overlord. She retains the right to charge a
royalty on all titles, to change the royalty rate at any time, to regulate the use of privately
held titles, and to reclaim any rights granted under title. Tenants who do not hold titles
rent through quasi-owners with the understanding that the proprietor collects further
royalties directly from them in whatever form she wants—as a portion of tenants’
income, a portion of their sales, a portion of their day in work direct for her, etc.
Proprietors enlarge the size of their estates through voluntary transfer and
rectification. They trade, form strategic marriage alliances, defend themselves against
aggressors, and use primogeniture in inheritance. Over the generations, estates become
larger until one proprietor owns the entire island of Britain. At this time she decides to
call herself “Queen” rather than “proprietor.” She refers to her “estate” as her “realm,”
her “tenants” as “subjects,” and her “royalties” as “taxes.” But the nature of the Queen’s
revenue has not changed.
The Queen is a property-owning monarch who derives enormous power not from
divine right, social contract, or consent of the governed, but from her inviolable
libertarian property rights. Her tax revenue is a form of return on the rental of her
property; it is hers to do with as she will. She can use it for public works, defense of the
realm, alms to the poor, or her own amusement. Being a “taxpayer” gives one the right
hold property, but it does not give one the right to decide how the Queen spends her
revenue; just as being a rent payer does not give one the right to decide how the landlord
spends her profits. Similarly, being a private title holder does not make one free of the
Queen’s regulations any more than being a private lease holder makes one free of a
landlord’s regulations. Her powers to regulate property come not from some social
responsibility but from her rights as overlord.
The point of this example is that the formal principles of natural property rights
allow the government to own property rights in everything, and that under such
circumstances it may tax and regulate property without violating anyone’s property
rights. The property-owning monarch represents both the monarchs of earlier times and
the strongest property rights that a government might have in property. But there are two
more questions to ask to connect this story of the Queen with modern governments’
property rights. Is a property-owning monarch, strictly speaking, a government, or just an
extremely wealthy individual? How can her rights be claimed by modern governments?
In Nozick’s terms, the Queen can be a government. Nozick’s state develops out of
profit-seeking protective associations with no necessary responsibility to be democratic.
The Queen is able to fulfill the role Nozick sets for the state: she protects everyone’s
formal self-ownership and the property rights of everyone who happens to own property
(i.e. herself).
The people could create a Parliament to protect their self-ownership and their
rights under the proviso against the Queen, but Parliament cannot protect individual
“property rights.” The one property owner is able to protect her property without
Parliament; and she is the arbiter of disputes involving her property. Under some version
of libertarianism, Parliament needs the Queen’s permission to use any property to enforce
laws protecting the self-ownership of others. It seems that the two powers together make
up the government.
There are at least two ways to unite the Parliament’s authority to protect selfownership
with the Queen’s authority to tax and regulate property. A monarch could
bequeath her property to Parliament, or the story can be retold so that the original
appropriators were democratic cooperatives. Through either of these routes, this story
endows government with enormous powers over privately held titles by virtue of the
libertarian principles of appropriation & voluntary transfer and (if necessary) rectification
& statue of limitations—principles that are supposed to exhaust the conditions for
establishing just property rights.
This illustration shows that government property rights are merely a pattern of
inequality. Small equal-sized ownership is one pattern. Unequal ownership with very rich
and very poor people is another. A monarchy in which one person owns everything is
another. A democratic government which owns a partial interest in everything is another.
Libertarianism claims to be unconcerned with the pattern, but if so, they cannot rule out
patterns in which governments own property.
The Queen in this story claims stronger ownership rights than most modern
governments, which primarily claim the power to tax and regulate private titles. Such
powers might amount to the government being a landlord who must respect her tenant’s
long-term leases, but they might amount to a weaker form of interest in property such as
that of a condominium association. Part 3 addresses the strength of government’s
historical property claims. Otherwise, I consider a Queen with full ownership that she
may exercise arbitrarily, just as libertarians permits all land-owners to do. The Queen’s
title holders have the same claim over their property that a renter has over an apartment
with a month-to-month lease; as long as they pay their rent and comply with the owner’s
rules, they may stay, but the owner can change the rent or the rules every month. The
Queen (or any property-owning government) may decide that arbitrary power is
imprudent. She may decide to make her quasi-titles very strong to take advantage of the
market mechanism. The question for natural rights libertarianism is not will she act
arbitrarily, but does she have the right to act arbitrarily. Her historical entitlement to
property rights implies that she does. The question becomes: if you’re a property rights
advocate, why aren’t you a monarchist?
Monarchy—especially with strong arbitrary powers—is anathema to most modern
conceptions of justice. Liberals, communitarians, egalitarians, left-libertarians,
democratic socialists, and the average person can make many consistent complaints
against the property-owning monarch. She is hogging all the resources. She has assumed
privileges for herself in violation of principles of democracy and equal rights. The
question is not whether monarchy is unjust—it certainly is—but whether libertarianism
can establish that a property-owning monarch (or any other strong government) is unjust
consistently with the argument from liberty. Arguments based on the Queen’s unequal
control of resources are not open to libertarians, because they do not allow any egalitarian
constraints on property ownership. Natural rights libertarianism has only four principles
to establish justice in property rights—appropriation, voluntary transfer, rectification, and
statute of limitations—none of which have been violated. A review of rights-based
libertarian literature, including works by David Boaz, Israel Kirzner, Charles Murray, Jan
Narveson, Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, and others, found no reasoning consistent
with the argument from liberty that favors a libertarian state over a property-owning
government. This article considers arguments libertarians might make against a propertyowning
government, but first it makes a brief aside to address the issue of how ownership
can be split between two parties such as government and private holders. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/14/2010 11:04 PM (GMT -6) | | | "...there is no difference in kind between most government powers and most powers of private property holders. The power to collect taxes and the power to collect any other form of income are simple powers that flow from the control of resources." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/15/2010 12:53 AM (GMT -6) | | “Why There are No Dilemmas in Widerquist’s ‘A Dilemma for Libertarians’”
by Lamont Rodgers
libertarianpapers.org/articles/2009/lp-1-41.pdf
------------------
Daniel"...there is no difference in kind between most government powers and most powers of private property holders. The power to collect taxes and the power to collect any other form of income are simple powers that flow from the control of resources."
- Try not paying your "taxes" and see what happens to you.
- Try not paying your "rent", and you will likely eventually get evicted
- If you do not receive your "wages", your employer is defrauding YOU of your property rights.
The power to collect taxes held by the government is lethal force. Incidently, the exact same "power" of an armed robber!!
The power to collect rent...is not power...it is right...I have the right to collect rent because I own the property. Your rent is payment for use of my resources. Hence, it is not power, in any sense similar to the use of the word power, that justly can be used about government...but authority of right. Typically rent is paid in advance. You pay me, then you use my property. It is a mutual exchange, consented to by both parties...unlike taxation.
When you pay me rent, you are getting something in exchange for your payment.
When I pay taxes, I may not be getting much of anything in exchange...and even if I am getting something...it may not be anything I want.
Seems like a HUGE difference in kind to me!
Nice try Daniel, but EPIC FAIL!
If you want a little sanity in exchange for the craziness that is your usual fare...why not try reading a libertarian capitalist on the meaning of capitalism, instead of looking to socialists who don't even know what capitalism is.
It is interesting that when I give you libertarian criticisms of socialism...you do not deny the criticism...but counter with socialist criticisms of libertarian capitalism...that fail to actually describe capitalism to any extent that a capitalist would say "Yep, that is capitalism."
In all seriousness now, have you ever read Mises' books on socialism, interventionism, and capitalism? Have you read any books by libertarian authors explaining the workings of capitalism and how it differs from both interventionism and socialism? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/15/2010 9:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Asher: "The power to collect taxes held by the government is lethal force."
Daneil: No, it's not. The government (at least in western democracies) will not kill you if you do not pay taxes. All governments are not equal.
Asher: "- If you do not receive your "wages", your employer is defrauding YOU of your property rights. "
Daniel: Yes, no one is disputing this. If you do not pay your income taxes you are defrauding the queen of her property rights for using her resources/land/capital to trade your labor.
Asher: "The power to collect rent...is not power...it is right...I have the right to collect rent because I own the property."
Daniel: You didn't read the paper, did you? The government, at least in theory, has a right to collect taxes, because like in the example of the queen, she owns (all) the property.
Lamont Rodgers (quoting Rothbard): "Where the victims are lost in antiquity, the land properly belongs to any non-criminals who are in current possession."
Daniel: Doesn't this suggest that America should yield it's land to the surviving native population? How far back does this go? This would imply that Israel should yield it's land to the surviving Palestinian population, since Israel robbed the land from the Palestinians in the last century. Unless this goes back 2000 years, in which case, we can easily do gene sequencing to determine who is of what origin and allocate them to their historical geographical location. What does it mean to be a non-criminal? Wouldn't it be the case that the entire nation would consist of criminals (at least in America). France never had the just property rights to the midwest. So they never had a right to sell it. England never had the just property rights to the east coast, so they never had the ability to loose those property rights to the colonies. The only way around this is the statute of limitations that Winderquist discusses.
Asher: "why not try reading a libertarian capitalist on the meaning of capitalism, instead of looking to socialists who don't even know what capitalism is."
The argument here isn't against capitalism per se. It's against the libertarian principles, and if followed logically, those principles defend monarchy and can result in extreme injustices. (Of course, it's not injustice to the libertarian, because the libertarian does not acknowledge that some distribution patterns of wealth are inherently unjust)
"It is interesting that when I give you libertarian criticisms of socialism...you do not deny the criticism"
That's because I'm not particularly invested in socialism as an economic idelology. So I'm okay with there being critiques of socialism. I think it (socialism) captures, in part, the way in which kingdom economics ought to work themselves out (a community working for and loving one another). And it's a helpful starting point for critiques of the current system, whether we call that capitalism or whatever. I've never argued for implementation of socialistic policies in any country I've lived in, and I don't vote so I haven't colluded with any politicians in enforcing socialistic policies. Communities (the type of social organization I WOULD argue for, and try to construct in my daily life) must be constructed volitionally, they cannot be established through coercion. Concern for the poor, etc are concerns of the community, thus necessarily a public concern (not simply a matter of individual, private, charity). This is where myself and socialism find a common ground.
Asher: In all seriousness now, have you ever read Mises' books on socialism, interventionism, and capitalism?
Daniel: Nope.
Daniel: The paper by Lamont Rodgers was kind of weak. At best, all he showed was that Winderquist used the word "dilemma" loosely. Rodgers is concerned with the connection between the three libertarian claims. All Rodgers does is weaken the connection between the claims so that Winderquists argument doesn't produce a dilemma. Which (1) pins a few libertarian authors against each other, and (2) doesn't really diffuse the power of Winderquist's arguments against accepting the four (I'm not sure why Rodgers only argues for three) principles of libertarianism. In other words, Rodgers fails to engage with Winderquist on all substantial issues, The only critique that Rodger attempts to argue is that Winderquist does not produce a genuine "dilemma", although I'm not terribly sure Rodgers succeeded in that. I'll need to think about it.Post Edited (Daniel M) : 7/15/2010 7:16:02 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/17/2010 11:10 AM (GMT -6) | | | Daniel: Of course, it's not injustice to the libertarian, because the libertarian does not acknowledge that some distribution patterns of wealth are inherently unjust
Jeff: That's because a distribution pattern of wealth, per se, implies nothing about the CAUSES of the pattern. If 90% of a society were poor because they refused to take the opportunities provided to them to acquire property, their poverty would be DUE to their own refusal to work. Hence, that mere PATTERN would imply nothing about any injustice done them by the 10%.
More than that, scripture says those who show no mercy receive no mercy. Those who don't forgive receive no forgiveness. And so on. On the other hand, those who CAUSE unwarranted suffering to others will RECEIVE reciprocal recompense for that. The reciprocal of NOT showing mercy (per scripture, at least) is to NOT have mercy shown to them--not PUNISHMENT! That's where you're getting it WRONG (i.e., UNJUST).
Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/17/2010 11:20:10 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/17/2010 3:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: If 90% of a society were poor because they refused to take the opportunities provided to them to acquire property, heir poverty would be DUE to their own refusal to work.
Daniel: Certainly, but "opportunity" can mean any number of things. Winderquist uses the example of owning actual property under the queen. Since the queen owns all the property only she has just rights to sell the property. And since she controls the titles, she effectively controls how much purchasing power any individual may have. However, she might give the "opportunity" to own actual property, it's just too expensive for anyone in her realm to purchase, but the opportunity still exists. Thus, the libertarian interpretation of that situation doesn't help us determine what is just and unjust at all. Libertarians are blind to the injustice their own systems can theoretically empower. I say theoretically, because there are no libertarian societies. And even if the libertarian principles were accepted, there is no need to believe that any libertarian state would ever exist, according to the paper Asher linked.
Jeff: Those who don't forgive receive no forgiveness.
Daniel: I thought you were a universalist  Post Edited (Daniel M) : 7/17/2010 8:46:44 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/17/2010 11:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: If 90% of a society were poor because they refused to take the opportunities provided to them to acquire property, heir poverty would be DUE to their own refusal to work.
Daniel: Certainly, but "opportunity" can mean any number of things.
Jeff: But then you've conceded to me that PATTERNS of wealth distribution, PER SE (i.e., INTRINSICALLY, as you originally said), have no implications for injustice. It could just have implications for different priorities in life.
Daniel: Libertarians are blind to the injustice their own systems can theoretically empower.
Jeff: No they're not. One thing libertarians tend NOT to be is utopians. There is no governmental state of affairs that can ELIMINATE evil.
Jeff: Those who don't forgive receive no forgiveness.
Daniel: I thought you were a universalist
Jeff: I am a universalist in the sense that all will EVENTUALLY be forgiven. They won't be forgiven in time to REIGN with Christ if they don't repent prior to standing before him in judgment. IOW, by my view, most people will be forgiven AFTER the reigning with God/Christ is over. If that is not a legitimate interpretation of the gospels, then I can't square the gospels with univeralism at all. In either case, the point stands--those who show no mercy will receive no mercy IN SOME RESPECT.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 134 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:07 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|