|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| As for being re-elected, I don't have much faith in the electorate as is. Frankly I'm far less interested in democracy (two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, as the cliche goes) than with the rule of law (ie. a constitution enshrining personal liberties into law, no matter who is voted into power). The US was never a "democracy" per se, it was a democratic republic with a constitution and bill of rights. In theory you should be able to vote in Hitler himself and he couldn't alter these rights without making himself illegitimate (which the US government has become today). |
And how far would you go in enforcing rule of law against the electorate? Would you respect election results? Respect freedom of assembly and speech?
Just take the example I gave, of restrictions on when an aeroplane can take off. How would you react if millions of people who live under take-off and landing paths started to demonstrate about their health taking a hit? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| As for being re-elected, I don't have much faith in the electorate as is. Frankly I'm far less interested in democracy (two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, as the cliche goes) than with the rule of law (ie. a constitution enshrining personal liberties into law, no matter who is voted into power). The US was never a "democracy" per se, it was a democratic republic with a constitution and bill of rights. In theory you should be able to vote in Hitler himself and he couldn't alter these rights without making himself illegitimate (which the US government has become today). |
And how far would you go in enforcing rule of law against the electorate? Would you respect election results? Respect freedom of assembly and speech?
Just take the example I gave, of restrictions on when an aeroplane can take off. How would you react if millions of people who live under take-off and landing paths started to demonstrate about their health taking a hit? |
He never said it is a case of the law vs the electorate. You missed his whole point which was that the will of the people in an election will always be respected even if they voted for Hitler. But even Adolf would not be able to violate the Constitution.
| Quote: |
| Respect freedom of assembly and speech? |
Of course! They are part of The Constitution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Space Bar wrote: |
| He never said it is a case of the law vs the electorate. You missed his whole point which was that the will of the people in an election will always be respected even if they voted for Hitler. But even Adolf would not be able to violate the Constitution. |
Constitutions can be amended, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
| Space Bar wrote: |
| He never said it is a case of the law vs the electorate. You missed his whole point which was that the will of the people in an election will always be respected even if they voted for Hitler. But even Adolf would not be able to violate the Constitution. |
Constitutions can be amended, |
or ignored. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
The first two countries can boast of really high quality social housing too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but libertarians seem to me to ignore the fact that power is not simply exercised by governments but also corporations. |
What a lazy platitude. There's no equivalence between the power of a corporation and the power of the state. Governments, in just the twentieth century, were responsible for the deaths of 45 million soldiers and 250 million innocent civilians. |
using weapons produced by corporations |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| This is what happens when a class of robber barons (Rockefellers, Morgans, Harrimans et al) takes over the reigns of government. |
I recall Milton Friedman referring to this as the 'Robber Baron Myth'. Evidently, libertarians don't agree on this chapter in American history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think the Soviets ended up producing the lions share of the weapons that were used in the nasty little conflicts that plagued the 20th century. AR series rifles were expensive. Gov produced AK's were cheaper than dirt... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| What a lazy platitude. There's no equivalence between the power of a corporation and the power of the state. Governments, in just the twentieth century, were responsible for the deaths of 45 million soldiers and 250 million innocent civilians. The moral transgressions of the corporate world could never compare with the atrocities carried out by governments. |
Some of the most despotic governments of the twentieth century carried out their attrocities with the sizeable support of corporations. Arguably, in the absence of state power some of these market 'opportunities' would not have emerged, but I still don't recall many instances where these corporations recoiled in dispair and snubbed the chance to improve the bottom line; irrespective of whether this was off the back of malevolent state power or not. Let's not forget either that there are many examples of corporations that finance political parties committed to the status quo. Many of them would quake in fear at the prospect of a party committed to truly libertarian values winning power and stripping the state down to a chassis. I guess that's the part of libertarianism that can sometimes make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
| Quote: |
| Corporations are subservient to the demands of consumers, such is the mutualism and communitarianism of capitalism. |
In the corporate world it is the bottom line which is paramount. Now sure, there is doubtless a positive relationship between profit and the degree to which consumer demands are satisfied, but there are other, more subtle ways of improving profitability too: a corporation can increase productivity; it can develop sophisticated marketing campaigns; or it can externalise its costs. With respect to all three, there are a number of nefarious strategies that can be employed in order to enhance profitability. When any pre-existing power structure is challenged, wicked deeds often result. I don't see any evidence that corporations are immune from the intoxicating effects of power, especially when their market share is threatened.
Of course, you would be absolutely right in pointing out that corporations can also improve the bottom line by essentially buying privileges from the state which are to the detriment of the consumer too. This is certainly the case now in a considerable part of the western world, and that is something that is forcing a deep period of intellectual introspection among many. Indeed, there is no doubt that the role of the state must change, and tax payers' money should be used with considerably less recklessness than is the case at present.
However, power structures will emerge with or without the state and corruption and coercion will inevitably result, something that is anathema to any real libertarian thinker. Your views are evidently genuinely held but I think that you grossly underestimate the potential for private tyrannies - possibly more detrimental - to emerge. Philanthropic endeavors could increase as freedom from taxation could conceivably result in more generosity, true, but even the criminal can engage in philanthropy. Of course, the cost of their crimes always outweighs their charity, and I think in principle this can apply here too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The problem with anarchy is there is no one to enforce it. In a state of nature, it is natural to collectivize around power. Government is inevitable. The question is merely on what principles, you establish government.
The same goes for commerce. In a state of nature, economics turn toward monopoly. Monopoly is 100% inefficiency.
Government and commerce need regulation. It is just a question of what regulation.
The best gift of the U.S. constitution is checks and balances. Governement and commerce cannot regulate itself. I wish human beings had such self restraint but we don't.
Socialist and liberterian idealism is just that - non existant nor can ever exist. They are just dreams someone is selling.
The real world is full of dirt and no one system can cure all our ills. The best systems are mixed and full of checks and balances.
And, the level of mix is always changing depending on the circumstances, problems and needs.
There is no one size fits all solution to our problems no matter how intoxicating it might seem.
The true believer - whether he be socialist or liberterian or religious - is at best an innocent dreamer and at worst enslaver and criminally dangerous.
Always be careful what you wish for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| This is what happens when a class of robber barons (Rockefellers, Morgans, Harrimans et al) takes over the reigns of government. |
I recall Milton Friedman referring to this as the 'Robber Baron Myth'. Evidently, libertarians don't agree on this chapter in American history. |
Milton Friedman wasn't a libertarian, not even ostensibly. He was a Monetarist (which has about as much in common with Keynesianism as Austrian economics). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| As for being re-elected, I don't have much faith in the electorate as is. Frankly I'm far less interested in democracy (two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, as the cliche goes) than with the rule of law (ie. a constitution enshrining personal liberties into law, no matter who is voted into power). The US was never a "democracy" per se, it was a democratic republic with a constitution and bill of rights. In theory you should be able to vote in Hitler himself and he couldn't alter these rights without making himself illegitimate (which the US government has become today). |
And how far would you go in enforcing rule of law against the electorate? Would you respect election results? Respect freedom of assembly and speech?
Just take the example I gave, of restrictions on when an aeroplane can take off. How would you react if millions of people who live under take-off and landing paths started to demonstrate about their health taking a hit? |
| Space Bar wrote: |
He never said it is a case of the law vs the electorate. You missed his whole point which was that the will of the people in an election will always be respected even if they voted for Hitler. But even Adolf would not be able to violate the Constitution.
| Quote: |
| Respect freedom of assembly and speech? |
Of course! They are part of The Constitution. |
This.
And I'm not so naive as to think there'll ever be a perfect world where everyone gets along and plays fair. The point is that any little thing we can do to roll back the leviathan state and increase liberty will make the world better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
The problem with anarchy is there is no one to enforce it. In a state of nature, it is natural to collectivize around power. Government is inevitable. The question is merely on what principles, you establish government.
The same goes for commerce. In a state of nature, economics turn toward monopoly. Monopoly is 100% inefficiency.
Government and commerce need regulation. It is just a question of what regulation.
The best gift of the U.S. constitution is checks and balances. Governement and commerce cannot regulate itself. I wish human beings had such self restraint but we don't.
Socialist and liberterian idealism is just that - non existant nor can ever exist. They are just dreams someone is selling.
The real world is full of dirt and no one system can cure all our ills. The best systems are mixed and full of checks and balances.
And, the level of mix is always changing depending on the circumstances, problems and needs.
There is no one size fits all solution to our problems no matter how intoxicating it might seem.
The true believer - whether he be socialist or liberterian or religious - is at best an innocent dreamer and at worst enslaver and criminally dangerous.
Always be careful what you wish for. |
This is pretty meaningless... You're saying the world is a complicated place and you don't have all the answers? That's fine. But it doesn't mean some people don't have some of the answers. The fact that you can't even accurately describe what libertarian ideals are shows that you don't understand them, and aren't really up to the task of debunking them.
For example, it is totally incorrect to state that a "in a state of nature, economics turn toward monopoly. Monopoly is 100% inefficiency.". This is simply untrue. There are no real work examples of a "natural monopoly". Not one. Every single monopoly in history has in some way been backed up by government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| This is what happens when a class of robber barons (Rockefellers, Morgans, Harrimans et al) takes over the reigns of government. |
I recall Milton Friedman referring to this as the 'Robber Baron Myth'. Evidently, libertarians don't agree on this chapter in American history. |
Milton Friedman wasn't a libertarian, not even ostensibly. He was a Monetarist (which has about as much in common with Keynesianism as Austrian economics). |
He supported the following:
- the expansion of private education
- the curtailment of social spending
- the legalisation of drugs
He opposed the following:
- tariffs and subsidies
- government licencing of the professions
- conscription
He sounds pretty close to libertarianism to me, and that's just off the top of my head. I believe that he considered himself a consequentialist libertarian.
Last edited by Gwangjuboy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| What a lazy platitude. There's no equivalence between the power of a corporation and the power of the state. Governments, in just the twentieth century, were responsible for the deaths of 45 million soldiers and 250 million innocent civilians. The moral transgressions of the corporate world could never compare with the atrocities carried out by governments. |
Some of the most despotic governments of the twentieth century carried out their attrocities with the sizeable support of corporations. Arguably, in the absence of state power some of these market 'opportunities' would not have emerged, but I still don't recall many instances where these corporations recoiled in dispair and snubbed the chance to improve the bottom line; irrespective of whether this was off the back of malevolent state power or not. Let's not forget either that there are many examples of corporations that finance political parties committed to the status quo. Many of them would quake in fear at the prospect of a party committed to truly libertarian values winning power and stripping the state down to a chassis. I guess that's the part of libertarianism that can sometimes make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. |
This is of course true. Corporatocracy is the same as fascism. It has nothing to do with freedom. Most of these corporations actually place their own people directly into government to pass legislation in their favor. Monsanto and drug lobbyists actually run the FDA. Every single member of Obama's administration is a former employee of either Goldman-Sachs or JP Morgan-Chase. They use government to dominate everyone else and destroy competition. These are monopoly men.
| Quote: |
| In the corporate world it is the bottom line which is paramount. Now sure, there is doubtless a positive relationship between profit and the degree to which consumer demands are satisfied, but there are other, more subtle ways of improving profitability too: a corporation can increase productivity; it can develop sophisticated marketing campaigns; or it can externalise its costs. With respect to all three, there are a number of nefarious strategies that can be employed in order to enhance profitability. When any pre-existing power structure is challenged, wicked deeds often result. I don't see any evidence that corporations are immune from the intoxicating effects of power, especially when their market share is threatened. |
How can a corporation externalize it's costs without infringing on the rights of others? The answer is by government sanction. Take the government out of the equation, enforce the rule of law (esp. private property) and corporations would be forced to play fair, by law. Of course this only works properly if similar laws are enforced in the 3rd world, where governments engage in naked corruption.
| Quote: |
| Of course, you would be absolutely right in pointing out that corporations can also improve the bottom line by essentially buying privileges from the state which are to the detriment of the consumer too. This is certainly the case now in a considerable part of the western world, and that is something that is forcing a deep period of intellectual introspection among many. Indeed, there is no doubt that the role of the state must change, and tax payers' money should be used with considerably less recklessness than is the case at present. |
This is an understatement.
| Quote: |
| However, power structures will emerge with or without the state and corruption and coercion will inevitably result, something that is anathema to any real libertarian thinker. Your views are evidently genuinely held but I think that you grossly underestimate the potential for private tyrannies - possibly more detrimental - to emerge. Philanthropic endeavors could increase as freedom from taxation could conceivably result in more generosity, true, but even the criminal can engage in philanthropy. Of course, the cost of their crimes always outweighs their charity, and I think in principle this can apply here too. |
Give an example of a private tyranny? There aren't many. The closest I can think of is the Rockefellers hiring Pinkertons to go massacre whole towns of strikers. But even then they already had the reigns of government under their control. Before the Federal Reserve was established (and the monopoly men literally became the government), and even before Lincoln centralized government power through war and atrocity, there may have been private, albeit very limited, tyrannies. But such tyrannies would have been far easier to escape or get rid of than the one we have presently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
