brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (09/15/84)
I get tired of all this mispresentation of the philosophy of liberty. Where do people get the idea that capitalists and libertarians (small l) don't believe in cooperation? That's the very essence of capitalism. You say, "don't you libertarians see that there are common social goals and that we must work together to reach them?" A capitalist will be the first to tell you that the way the world works is by people recognizing their common goals and working together on them. You TRADE... you recognize what you have that others want, and what they have that you want and you trade, of your own free will, for it is a common goal you have. The socialist is the opposite. They say that they have spotted the common goals, and that since not everybody agrees with them, we must use force to ensure that they "cooperate." The reality is that one does not cooperate with a socialist or any other totalitarian. One complies. So what is it that makes you attack capitalism? Is it because it advocates competition and you think that's wasteful and destructive when a central authority could resolve issues from above and settle matters? If so, then please tell me how you could possibly think this is going to be more productive than what we have. Sure competition results in some wasted effort, but if you can show me any evidence that autocracy is better, it will be big news. Now cut the name calling folks. I don't call you socialists psychotic! I understand perfectly why you advocate what you do. It's not a mental disorder, just an error in judgement. I hope you can give the same credit to capitalists. To call somebody psychotic because you can't understand them is rather weak, don't you suspect? Especially you Peter. Do you really think I have a brain disorder that disconnects me from reality? -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ontario (519) 884-7473
peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (09/16/84)
>From Brad Templeton >Where do people get the idea that capitalists and libertarians (small l) >don't believe in cooperation? That's the very essence of capitalism. > Capitalism and socialism are entirely other issues, that I didn't even mention. I get the idea that libertarians don't believe in cooperation very strongly from the relative lack of institutions for compromise in their philosophy. In a world with (a) differing views on how things should be done and (b) limited resources, some means of compromising to settle on common goals for various groups needs to be found. Saying that one believes in cooperation but then providing no mechanism to reach agreement on what to cooperate on is like buying a car and refusing to buy gas. >So what is it that makes you attack capitalism? Is it because it >advocates competition and you think that's wasteful and destructive when >a central authority could resolve issues from above and settle matters? > I didn't attack capitalism. And I certainly wasn't advocating central authorities. I was pointing out the possible contributions of anarchism. THAT philosophy, more than any other, abhors central authority. >Now cut the name calling folks. I don't call you socialists psychotic! (This debate is being confused by the fact that Brad and I have discussed socialism and capitalism before. Right now, I'm only talking about libertarianism and anarchism, however.) >I understand perfectly why you advocate what you do. It's not a mental >disorder, just an error in judgement. I hope you can give the same credit >to capitalists. To call somebody psychotic because you can't understand >them is rather weak, don't you suspect? Especially you Peter. Do you >really think I have a brain disorder that disconnects me from reality? I must admit to the use of the word "psychotic" as a rhetorical device, and it has long since served its role, so I won't use it again. But I do think it is a mistake not to take into serious account the (a) and (b) of above. In fact, one might say that the acid test for any political philosophy is how they deal with those issues. Philsophical libertarianism doesn't seem to pay much attention to them (perhaps I am wrong on this). peter rowley, University of Toronto Department of C.S., Ontario Canada M5S 1A4 UUCP {linus ihnp4 allegra floyd utzoo cornell decwrl uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!peterr CSNet peterr@toronto
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (09/17/84)
Peter, I can only conclude that you have not read *any* Libertarian philosophy, or you don't pay attention to what you read. If you didn't understand the issue of *voluntary co-oporation* as opposed to *compliance under force of threat of force* then you are going to have to re-read. If it wasn't there, then you either *aren't reading Libertarian philosophy* or you are reading a highly specialised book dealing with a small area of philosophy (say Libertarian Analytic Philosophy). If you want a popular read, you can try *Robert Ringer's* *Restoring the American Dream*. Personally, I thought that you were just trying to bait me, and I won't be baited. Lay off terms like ``psychotic'', will you? Nobody is going to be willing to argue with you if your basic position is to call someone who does not measure reality according to your lights ``psychotic''. There is no future, because you are not saying that ``Libertarians have made a mistake in believing X'' but rather ``Libertarians are crazy to believe X''. If you honestly believe that we are crazy then you come off rather the fool in arguing with us, since a crazy person is not expected to be reasonable (either all across the board, or at least in the area of his mania). If you do not believe that we are crazy, but believe that we have made a mistake then you are simply indulging in gratuitous insults. Now that your tactic is known we are all going to avoid arguing with you like the plague until you reform your behaviour because we all have got better things to do than be a receptical for abuse. Enough. The basic difference between Philosophical Anarchism and Philosophical Libertarianism is ``the Libertarian tag''. Libertarians believe that to get one's way through force or threat of force is evil. So when a Libertarian talks about ``the freedom to do X'' there is always implied (if not explicitly stated) ``as long as X does not violate the freedom of another''. So ``the freedom to have whatever I desire'' and ``the freedom to be a mass-murderer'' and ``the freedom to bomb the Montreal train station'' are all contradictions in terms. Philosophical Anarchists are not so constrained. Some of them believe in the Libertarian tag, but some of them do not. In particular, many Philosophical Anarchists are Utilitarians, or for some other reason believe that ``the end justifies the means''. Pure Libertarian philosophy is opposed to this. No matter how much I would like to decentralise govenment I do not get to bomb the Parliament buildings. Philosophical Anarchism thus can be as tolitarian as it comes. (Not all Philosophical Anarchists are tolitarians, of course, and, indeed some of the non-tolitarian Philosophical Anarchists have tried to disown the tolitarian ones). Tolitarian Philosophical Anarchists, to the extent that they are going to impose ``freedom'' (or at least, the absense of government) by force or threat of force are not going to be accepted by Libertarians. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (09/17/84)
Why do we attack capitalism? Because millions starve every day under capitalist-originated economic relationships. You can fault Cuba for a lot, but nobody starves in Cuba. This is no accident: Cuba makes it a goal to reduce starving, capitalists see it as some hoped-for outcome of their real goal: profit. Unfortunately, hoping hasn't worked for Africa and South America.
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (09/18/84)
Nobody starves under socialism? Boy have you got a lot to learn. T. C. Wheeler
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/18/84)
Agreed, under capitalism nobody makes it an official goal to reduce
malnutrition and starvation... but socialism doesn't necessarily help.
The average level of nutrition in China is still marginal, and hasn't
improved at all in the last twenty years.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henrymmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/19/84)
From Brad Templeton:
===========================
I get tired of all this mispresentation of the philosophy of liberty.
Where do people get the idea that capitalists and libertarians (small l)
don't believe in cooperation? That's the very essence of capitalism.
....
The socialist is the opposite. They say that they have spotted the common
goals, and that since not everybody agrees with them, we must use force
to ensure that they "cooperate." The reality is that one does not
cooperate with a socialist or any other totalitarian. One complies.
===========================
Ok, so people misrepresent theoretical capitalism. But equally, you
misrepresent socialism, perhaps in a more devastating manner. As a matter
of practice, one does not cooperate with a capitalist of great monetary
power, one complies. Perhaps there is a Geneva Convention for the
conduct of capitalist trade, but in practice it has not been adhered
to when those with power are given the chance to use that power. We
are dealing with people, not neat systems with nice gentle rules.
The Mafia works in a nicely capitalist way, providing services that people
want to trade for, and using force where necessary to ensure their dominance
of the trade. They cooperate among themselves very well.
On the other hand, socialists are neither better nor worse in this
respect. In theory there is no semblance of totalitarianism, but in
practice people with power to make choices will do so and will compel
people to conform when such compulsion is possible and seen to be more
effective than persuasion. In theory, some aspects of the economy are
owned by all of us and run for the maximum benefit of society as a whole.
In practice, some publicly owned enterprises are well run, and some are
not, just as is true for privately owned enterprises. The difference is
primarily that the main purpose of a public enterprise is to serve the
public, whereas that is an incidental effect of the private enterprise.
It is silly to argue for extremes in either direction. (At least that is
my humble opinion). A mixed economy seems to benefit everyone, both
entrepreneurs and people with less talents or opportunity, better than
either total state control (disaster) or total freedom to manipulate
markets and exert all available monetary power.
In private correspondence, Brad and I have been misunderstanding one another
about who should have the right to make decisions. I believe that checks
and balances are appropriate, not only in the interplay among unequally
strong individuals, but also between strong individuals and the delegates
of groups of individuals at all levels of group size (ie regional, national,
and international governments). The same is true of the interplay between
that kind of government and those other, orthogonal governments called
multi-national corporations. The point about a balance of power is that
there are both many enough and few enough players to permit the balancing
servo-mechanism to work. The point about having power is that some things
should actually get done, despite countervailing forces.
I don't like unnecessary restriction and regulation, but I am sure that
the optimum is not at zero.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtbrad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (09/19/84)
Again and again you assume that capitalists are against everything you stand for. Capitalists don't say "people should starve." They say "people should not have their money taken from them by force to feed those who don't work." I personally stand for providing enough food and health care to the needy in our society, and I wish to do so of MY OWN FREE CHOICE. I think universal education is of value. I will gladly help support school systems, but wish to do so of MY OWN FREE CHOICE. I think you get the message. My choice, not somebody else's. Do you open your home so that the needy can come in as they like and take your food and goods? I doubt it. What the philosophy of liberty says is that nobody has the right to get their way with force of arms. Not the government, not the Mafia, not anybody. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (09/19/84)
[Let them eat first lines]
Mike Kelly says many people starve every day under "capitalist-originated"
economic relationships.
Mike, it's not capitalism that does this, but rather feudalism. Sure,
starvation is the exception rather than the rule in socialist
countries, but it is also rare in capitalist countries which do not
prohibit a particular class from holding power.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidsaquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/19/84)
From Laura Creighton >Personally, I thought that you were just trying to bait me, and I won't >be baited. Lay off terms like ``psychotic'', will you? Nobody is going >to be willing to argue with you if your basic position is to call >someone who does not measure reality according to your lights ``psychotic''. >There is no future, because you are not saying that ``Libertarians have >made a mistake in believing X'' but rather ``Libertarians are crazy to >believe X''. If you honestly believe that we are crazy then you come >off rather the fool in arguing with us, since a crazy person is not >expected to be reasonable (either all across the board, or at least in >the area of his mania). If you do not believe that we are crazy, but believe >that we have made a mistake then you are simply indulging in gratuitous >insults. Now that your tactic is known we are all going to avoid arguing >with you like the plague until you reform your behaviour because we >all have got better things to do than be a receptical for abuse. > >Enough. Agreed with you Laura, "psychotic" was the wrong thing to call you. I think "paranoid" is much more appropriate! <-: <-: <-: :-> :-> Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/19/84)
==================
Agreed, under capitalism nobody makes it an official goal to reduce
malnutrition and starvation... but socialism doesn't necessarily help.
The average level of nutrition in China is still marginal, and hasn't
improved at all in the last twenty years.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
=================
But an incredible amount better than before 1949! When was the last
Chinese famine? How did the growth of the (socialist) German economy
compare with Canada's or that of the USA in the 50's, 60's and 70's?
Which countries are computed to have the highest Quality of Life factor?
Hint: they aren't in North America.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmthenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/20/84)
> > The average level of nutrition in China is still marginal, and hasn't > > improved at all in the last twenty years. > > But an incredible amount better than before 1949! When was the last > Chinese famine? You miss the point, Martin. The departure of the old regime certainly improved nutritional standards a great deal. The point is that they are still relatively poor, and *NOT IMPROVING*. In the last twenty years, socialist China has had no success whatsoever in reducing what is clearly still a serious problem. > How did the growth of the (socialist) German economy > compare with Canada's or that of the USA in the 50's, 60's and 70's? > Which countries are computed to have the highest Quality of Life factor? > Hint: they aren't in North America. Silly me, here I always thought West Germany was a capitalist state. I trust you are talking about West Germany, since East Germany hadn't performed any economic miracles last I heard. Certainly the major factor behind West Germany's economic recovery has been private enterprise, lightly assisted by the state at times. If this is socialism, then I fear the term has lost all meaning. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (09/20/84)
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton): >Again and again you assume that capitalists are against everything you >stand for. Capitalists don't say "people should starve." They say >"people should not have their money taken from them by force to feed >those who don't work." > >I personally stand for providing enough food and health care to the >needy in our society, and I wish to do so of MY OWN FREE CHOICE. > >I think universal education is of value. I will gladly help support >school systems, but wish to do so of MY OWN FREE CHOICE. > We had that "freedom of choice" for many years in the U.S. Still people starved, went homeless and died from exposure. Sounds nice. Doesn't work. Next idea. Mike Kelly
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (09/21/84)
If you call living on a diet of cabbage an improved quality of life, then you must have a different view of life than I do. Further, since 1949, there have been numerous famines in China. I don't have the dates in front of me, but they have happened with regularity. A famine is not the sort of news the government likes to talk about in public, but they have happened according to reports leaked out of Hong Kong. The biggest crop in China right now is cabbage. Tons of it are trucked into the cities and piled in mounds along the streets. The people then purchase this strange commodity and try to subsist on it every day. My sister-in-law spent three weeks in and around Bjeing(sp) last year. Her biggest impression was the mounds and truckloads of cabbage being delivered every morning and the lines of people waiting to get their share. I don't want to demean the efforts of the current government over there, but to paint a rosey picture of the situation is dumb. I am also sure that conditions under the former feudal system were worse, but to intimate that there have been no famines since 1949 is also dumb. T. C. Wheeler
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/21/84)
==================== > How did the growth of the (socialist) German economy > compare with Canada's or that of the USA in the 50's, 60's and 70's? Silly me, here I always thought West Germany was a capitalist state. I trust you are talking about West Germany, since East Germany hadn't performed any economic miracles last I heard. Certainly the major factor behind West Germany's economic recovery has been private enterprise, lightly assisted by the state at times. If this is socialism, then I fear the term has lost all meaning. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry ==================== I think you are right. The term "socialism" has obviously lost useful meaning in this debate. If West Germany is not to be considered an example of socialism because it is capitalist, but China is although it proclaims itself to be Communist, then where should we use the term? Another net correspondent has taken me to task for not distinguishing between socialists and Social Democrats. For the life of me, I can't see the difference there, so perhaps I should use the term Social Democrat instead of Socialist. If I don't know what you mean when you say "socialist", and you don't know what I mean, by all means let's drop the term. But we still need something to describe the moderate welfare state with limited nationalisation that lies between your preferred total free enterprise and the Communist totally planned economy. What shall we call it, if not socialist? P.S. I am off the net until Oct 12, so will not respond to correspondence. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
slack@wxlvax.UUCP (Tom Slack) (09/26/84)
>From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton): > > >Again and again you assume that capitalists are against everything you > >stand for. Capitalists don't say "people should starve." They say > >"people should not have their money taken from them by force to feed > >those who don't work." > > > >I personally stand for providing enough food and health care to the > >needy in our society, and I wish to do so of MY OWN FREE CHOICE. > > > >I think universal education is of value. I will gladly help support > >school systems, but wish to do so of MY OWN FREE CHOICE. > > > >We had that "freedom of choice" for many years in the U.S. Still >people starved, went homeless and died from exposure. > >Sounds nice. Doesn't work. Next idea. > >Mike Kelly It worked better than anything we have since tried. Voluntary welfare systems in this country still outperform the federal system. Private schools have always outperformed the public ones and outnumbered them until this century. Private pension plans outperform Social Security. In the US, more people have starved, went homeless or died of exposure due to acts of Government than have been relieved by the Federal system. I refer to: The last flight of the Nez Perce, The extermination order of Missouri (1838), The flight of the Mormans from Nauvoo Ill. (1847), The Trail of Tears of the five civilized tribes (1820-1842), The Civil war (fought over power politics). These difficulties were caused by people who chose group rule rather than protecting individual rights. These people should have had their right to property protected, In this century, group rule (power to the majority, and power to minority groups) has increased. Individual rights to property have decreased. Tom Slack