|
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 |
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 11:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
Dead serious and I can assure you I don't have another account here. I used to browse the forum as an E2 working in Korea. I'm actually quite the fan of your posts and wondered how a guy like you ended up teaching in SK.
Can you elaborate then why you think Atlas shrugged is not relevant to the problems we have today? My impression is that you think it's mostly b.s. |
Expect criticisms of Rand's personal life and FEELINGS of disgust towards the ideas, but few concrete criticisms of the ideas.
If he says the characters are too broadly drawn (handsome/beautiful capitalists vs. ugly/wimpy govt types) I will agree. But it's hard to argue with the parallels with current issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Dead serious and I can assure you I don't have another account here. |
Yes, that's why I changed my post. I wrote as I did due to your join date, but it was both impossible to be sure of and irrelevant to the conversation.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Can you elaborate then why you think Atlas shrugged is not relevant to the problems we have today? My impression is that you think it's mostly b.s. |
I didn't say I didn't think it was relevant, I just said it didn't change my world views. In fact, I think it's quite relevant. It (and by it I mean the existence and popularity of the book itself, not the story specifically) also highlights a real problem in our electorate though: people who correctly perceive the problematic results of excessive governmental intervention, but who unfortunately conclude from that that all governmental intervention is bad. This kind of extremism is completely unproductive; it's the difference between saying, "End the Fed!" and, "End public roads!" The former is a reasonable -- if politically difficult -- policy perscription. The latter is lunacy, and yet is the logical end result of the fanaticism in question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| Expect criticisms of Rand's personal life and FEELINGS of disgust towards the ideas, but few concrete criticisms of the ideas. |
You want a concrete criticism of ideas? Well here's a small taste for you. The market is excellent at producing, but horrible at properly distributing reward for said production, because those whose task it is to determine how profits are distributed invariably over-value their own contribution, and not by a small amount. Hypothetically workers could combat this by withholding their labor, but in actuality this has proven essentially impossible, as the phenomenon is far too wide-spread, and people who successfully form new businesses are incentivized to become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Attempting to construe an attempt to correct this imbalance as the work of parasites, looters, and moochers as a matter of principle is completely invalid, and frankly disgusting.
I could go on, but I'm not going to write out an essay for you. In a serious discussion with someone like Koveras or geldedgoat I might be willing to have a go at it, but let's be realistic, you're not interested in discussion, just regurgitation from "economics 101." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| Expect criticisms of Rand's personal life and FEELINGS of disgust towards the ideas, but few concrete criticisms of the ideas. |
You want a concrete criticism of ideas? Well here's a small taste for you. The market is excellent at producing, but horrible at properly distributing reward for said production, because those whose task it is to determine how profits are distributed invariably over-value their own contribution, and not by a small amount. Hypothetically workers could combat this by withholding their labor, but in actuality this has proven essentially impossible, as the phenomenon is far too wide-spread, and people who successfully form new businesses are incentivized to become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Attempting to construe an attempt to correct this imbalance as the work of parasites, looters, and moochers as a matter of principle is completely invalid, and frankly disgusting.
I could go on, but I'm not going to write out an essay for you. In a serious discussion with someone like Koveras or geldedgoat I might be willing to have a go at it, but let's be realistic, you're not interested in discussion, just regurgitation from "economics 101." |
this is actually very decent rebuttal to Randanomics 101. Not sure if you came up with it yourself but very good nonetheless.
But the thing is, even in the hypothetical situation you've posed I can imagine the workers can leave and find better jobs. If I work at a factory for a lowly wage while the owner reaps crazy profits. If unhappy, I will come to find other work or move up the hierarchy in the factory maybe become a manager. If people are self-interested and they want more out of life they have the choice to invest their time in other jobs or educate themselves in some skill or craft.
And in a world with no federally backed student loans I'd imagine there wouldn't be a glut of teachers, phD's, lawyers, engineers, pharmacists or various BA's so your education might actually retain some value.
If I became a factory owner myself there isn't anything wrong if I make a lot of profit so as long as I don't trample on people's rights or wreck havoc on the environment.
Also I think it's a false dichotomy to say we have to choose between what we have now or go straight to having a government that only consists of police and military. Obviously it's practically not feasible to drop all funding, but I'd imagine we could wean ourselves off government controls gradually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| But the thing is, even in the hypothetical situation you've posed I can imagine the workers can leave and find better jobs. |
In the hypothetical situation in question, I can imagine some workers leaving to try to find better jobs too. But the simple reality is most people aren't in a position to just quit their job unless they have another one lined up. We have lives to live, families to feed, and so forth. So unless there's an abundant, ready supply of alternative better jobs waiting, most people simply can't be expected to jump ship.
So the question becomes, "Why isn't an abundant supply of better jobs waiting?" The answer in my estimation is composed of three points:
1) The overwhelming majority of potential fields of business have a substantial cost of entry, both in terms of capital and in terms of effort.
2) Once one pays that cost of entry, it is in their interest to act just like previous employers did, over-valuing their own worth while under-valuing the labor of others.
3) A huge portion of the population simply isn't cut out to attempt to even try to start their own business.
These three factors combine to ensure that most of the average-level jobs one can find will be ones just like the ones you left, and the over-all situation remains the same. There are exceptions, of course. Rare individuals at times break the mold, and fields which require immense training in their own right (such as doctors) can generally expect fair compensation, but the average citizen is going to be taken advantage of in terms of compensation. That's simply the reality; a large, disorganized population of workers with at best a moderate grasp of their own interests can't be expected to seriously barter with a small population of fairly organized business owners with a much sharper grasp of their own interests.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| And in a world with no federally backed student loans I'd imagine there wouldn't be a glut of teachers, phD's, lawyers, engineers, pharmacists or various BA's so your education might actually retain some value. |
I'll respond to this at the end of my post
| recessiontime wrote: |
| If I became a factory owner myself there isn't anything wrong if I make a lot of profit so as long as I don't trample on people's rights or wreck havoc on the environment. |
Isn't there? It affords you excessive political influence, which can and often will be used to corrupt the system in your favor. It minimizes other people's opportunities to move up in the world, because the profit you keep for yourself is profit denied your workers, despite the fact that their labor was critical in its production. It lowers the standard of living of your employees as well in order to increase your own. I'm not saying earnings have to be equal; the owner of a factory did put up capital for its creation, of course he should get a larger share of the proceeds than the average worker. But I think anyone who isn't an ideologue will see that left totally unchecked, he'll end up with a disproportionately large share. Total economic equality is probably an unachievable dream that isn't worth discussing, but there are problems with severe economic inequality as well. I feel it's totally unfair to characterize people who recognize this problem as looters. Particular individual solutions might not be ideal, but the general premise is sound enough.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Also I think it's a false dichotomy to say we have to choose between what we have now or go straight to having a government that only consists of police and military. |
I agree completely, there's a lot of room in between those two models. It's the extremists I oppose who disagree. To use an example from earlier in your own post, yes, the way we handle higher education is problematic, forcing people to go through extra years of education (and pay ever-increasing amounts to do so) in order to get basic jobs in many fields. We can address that without, say, privatizing all roads. I fully support evaluating governmental activity on a case-by-case basis and objectively considering how much it benefits society. That's a far cry, though, from a priori opposition to governmental involvement in society beyond the utmost basics, and that's what I see as the logical conclusion of the philosophy of Ayn Rand and her followers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| This kind of extremism is completely unproductive; it's the difference between saying, "End the Fed!" and, "End public roads!" The former is a reasonable -- if politically difficult -- policy perscription. The latter is lunacy, and yet is the logical end result of the fanaticism in question. |
How is being opposed to public roads unproductive, unreasonable, lunacy and fanatical? Do you think we wouldn't have transport if we didn't have public roads?
Do you not agree that there are also side effects to public roads? Pollution, urban sprawl, global warming (  ). I hardly think these things are "lunacy." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| Expect criticisms of Rand's personal life and FEELINGS of disgust towards the ideas, but few concrete criticisms of the ideas. |
You want a concrete criticism of ideas? Well here's a small taste for you. The market is excellent at producing, but horrible at properly distributing reward for said production, because those whose task it is to determine how profits are distributed invariably over-value their own contribution, and not by a small amount. Hypothetically workers could combat this by withholding their labor, but in actuality this has proven essentially impossible, as the phenomenon is far too wide-spread, and people who successfully form new businesses are incentivized to become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Attempting to construe an attempt to correct this imbalance as the work of parasites, looters, and moochers as a matter of principle is completely invalid, and frankly disgusting.
I could go on, but I'm not going to write out an essay for you. In a serious discussion with someone like Koveras or geldedgoat I might be willing to have a go at it, but let's be realistic, you're not interested in discussion, just regurgitation from "economics 101." |
That's a shame.
I think your central premise is flawed. Labor benefits greatly from the work of capitalists. The "pie" as it were, isn't fixed. Capitalists tend to expand the size of the "pie" which benefits all citizens. That the person who created the value gets to keep a large percentage of it (that he will in turn reinvest, further enlarging the pie to the benefit of all people), is hardly disgusting.
People wouldn't start new businesses if there weren't rewards on offer.
Even if I am wrong and you are right, how do you propose redistributing the "profits" in a way that doesn't engender corruption, graft, dependency, special interest (and all the other stuff we see every day)? It's been tried, and it's been proven it can't be done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
Also I think it's a false dichotomy to say we have to choose between what we have now or go straight to having a government that only consists of police and military. Obviously it's practically not feasible to drop all funding, but I'd imagine we could wean ourselves off government controls gradually. |
Exactly. I might come across as "fanatical" sometimes, but I'm really just riffing on my ideal utopia. A move towards freer markets and freer lives is hardly a controversial position. I'm sure there are many things we all agree on.
- End the Fed.
- End the drug war.
- End all the other wars.
- End trade barriers (tariffs, quotas, import restrictions etc).
- End the ridiculous deficits.
If we did these things, 90% of what we ALL complain about would be solved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by excessive political influence. In the hypothetical Rand world where there is separation of Government from corporations and this would not occur. I wouldn't be able to lobby the government to serve my own interests. However, I can understand if you think this is a naive thing to say. The one thing communism teaches us is that the people in power get greedy and abuse it. I can imagine how the police and military of the Rand world, if unchecked, could be influenced by wealth of big business owners.
If people cannot afford to own a business they can invest in stocks, land, gold etc. Even a person with an E2 visa can save enough to open some sort of business in Korea with some effort and some good partners. I'm not sure I can sympathize with people that use their children as an excuse for not wanting to save and invest. I hear you though, these are hard times and jobs are far from vacant.
The reason why government is characterized as looters is on a moral standpoint. Taxation no matter what you like to call it is legal theft of earned wealth backed by the use of force. It's not moral to tell someone they have to sacrifice their money so a group of powerful people (that say they have your interest in mind...) can spend it on things which you may not value, and if you don't comply, you get jailed. They might spend it on handicapped children, student loans, bail outs, wire tapping, internet kill switches or some other thing you do not value.
I personally can't stand to think my tax money will be spent on welfare in a country where there are too many loop holes for it to be abused by practically everyone. In asian countries like Japan and Korea people actually take care of their own parents instead of relying on government handouts, they seem to be doing okay. Not having a safety net would also give people actual incentive not be 'moochers'.
I think if people weren't taxed at all they would have enough wealth to donate to things they value. If it sounds naive to believe that people will donate to things they value ( like providing for roads around their businesses) I understand. Most people I talk to are very doubtful that physicians would treat the poor when in need but from what I hear even in the old days there were taken care of out of charity.
It's hard to say really because this is an experiment and the results have not been seen. Randist's attribute the success of early America to the free market but I'm not sure it is a very convincing argument. I'll just say it's a interesting concept to me and I would like to see how it would play out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
| If I became a factory owner myself there isn't anything wrong if I make a lot of profit so as long as I don't trample on people's rights or wreck havoc on the environment. |
Isn't there? It affords you excessive political influence, which can and often will be used to corrupt the system in your favor. It minimizes other people's opportunities to move up in the world, because the profit you keep for yourself is profit denied your workers, despite the fact that their labor was critical in its production. It lowers the standard of living of your employees as well in order to increase your own. I'm not saying earnings have to be equal; the owner of a factory did put up capital for its creation, of course he should get a larger share of the proceeds than the average worker. But I think anyone who isn't an ideologue will see that left totally unchecked, he'll end up with a disproportionately large share. Total economic equality is probably an unachievable dream that isn't worth discussing, but there are problems with severe economic inequality as well. I feel it's totally unfair to characterize people who recognize this problem as looters. Particular individual solutions might not be ideal, but the general premise is sound enough. |
Make the system incorruptible. Ensure govts stick to the constitution.
The bolded part is just silly. Profits made by industrialists are reinvested in order to increase capital equipment, R&D or, heaven forbid!, hire more workers. These guys aren't Scrooge McDuck with a giant vault of money that they swim around in.
Again, how do you fairly redistribute the profits without hurting the workers? This is the problem. Redistributionist policies never hurt the rich guys. They always hurt the poor.
| Quote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Also I think it's a false dichotomy to say we have to choose between what we have now or go straight to having a government that only consists of police and military. |
I agree completely, there's a lot of room in between those two models. It's the extremists I oppose who disagree. To use an example from earlier in your own post, yes, the way we handle higher education is problematic, forcing people to go through extra years of education (and pay ever-increasing amounts to do so) in order to get basic jobs in many fields. We can address that without, say, privatizing all roads. I fully support evaluating governmental activity on a case-by-case basis and objectively considering how much it benefits society. That's a far cry, though, from a priori opposition to governmental involvement in society beyond the utmost basics, and that's what I see as the logical conclusion of the philosophy of Ayn Rand and her followers. |
I have an a priori distrust for govt because there aren't that many area that they get right. And even the odd time they do, can be put down to chance. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
In the education example, where do you think the problem stems from? Please answer this because I'm genuinely curious. My opinion (stolen from many other people) is that we had a bubble in education, the same we had in houses and stocks. The ever increasing price of education is a form of academic inflation caused by loose money. Another form of redistribution (from everyone to the govt). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm sure even fox thinks that federally backed student loan racket is indefensible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| I'm not entirely sure what you mean by excessive political influence. In the hypothetical Rand world where there is separation of Government from corporations and this would not occur. I wouldn't be able to lobby the government to serve my own interests. However, I can understand if you think this is a naive thing to say. The one thing communism teaches us is that the people in power get greedy and abuse it. I can imagine how the police and military of the Rand world, if unchecked, could be influenced by wealth of big business owners. |
And beyond that as well. This is one of my primary objections to extreme Libertarian thought. A bare-bones governmental structure is fine in theory, but there's no way to keep it that way that I can see. Unequal distribution of wealth will lead to corruption over time (and in fact, that's exactly the reason our own system has so many flaws after all: people concentrating wealth and using it to influence politics in their favor). A more complex system can possibly mitigate this through ethics rules, laws regarding political donations, and so forth. A bare-bones system cannot, and will inevitably drift away from it.
It's all well and good for the likes of Ayn Rand to talk about hypothetical governmental systems that are free of what amounts to politics, but one may as well listen to Communists wax philosophic about how their system would work if only humans weren't so self-interested. Politics are going to exist no matter what, and outside of substantial, well thought-out protections (which have by no means been even close to perfected yet), will always be open to influence by those with money to spend. As such, your wealth would in fact afford you greater political influence.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| If people cannot afford to own a business they can invest in stocks, land, gold etc. |
1) They can do that now, yet that capability doesn't seem to improve the lot of the average man all that much.
2) In a system where corporate limited liability didn't exist -- and as such, all share-holders would be 100% accountable for any liabilities of the company they owned -- investing in business becomes incredibly risky for the average, uninformed individual. Mind you, I support an end to limited liability, I'm simply pointing this out to reinforce the fact that the average person wouldn't be safe playing "small investor" with regards to business in a totally free system, as it could land them heavily in debt. As such, they'd be for the most part limited to investing in things like gold (and looking at companies that sell gold to the average person right now, they'd probably get screwed doing so), or land (which in a non-inflationary monetary system -- which I assume is what you believe your Randian system would be -- isn't going to appreciate in value very quickly unless its location is particularly well chosen, and at that point we're again facing the dilemma of how well the average investor will fare in a field that requires some expertise). Regardless of what they chose, it's probably not going to help their social mobility much.
I don't think expecting the average person to invest their way to success is particularly realistic. Good investment can definitely take you places, but bad investment can hurt you, and that would only be more true in a totally free system.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| The reason why government is characterized as looters is on a moral standpoint. Taxation no matter what you like to call it is legal theft of earned wealth backed by the use of force. |
I don't agree at all. Government provides services, and in return, we must pay fees. If we live in an apartment, and like the apartment just fine but hate the rent, can we just wish away the rent? Of course not; the apartment does business in a certain way and if we dislike it, we move. Nations are ultimately no different, and any nation which allows for emigration (which is any nation anyone participating in this conversation is from), we are free to leave if we don't feel we are getting our tax money's worth.
The North Korea government robs the North Korean people, because it doesn't allow them to leave of their own free will. The American government doesn't rob me anymore than my land lord does. Mind you, that doesn't mean you can't advocate for change! It just means if the majority of other citizens want something else, you can either accept the "fee structure" they are willing to accept, or take yourself elsewhere. That of course assumes you have somewhere else to go, but not having another nation willing to accept you doesn't mean your current nation is robbing you, just as not having another apartment to move into means your current landlord is robbing you.
Taxation is not robbery from any genuinely rational standpoint unless your government forces you to remain within the boundaries of your nation. None of us are in such a situation; it may be difficult to leave a nation, but it's a path open to us if we feel our tax money is being poorly used. Many people the world over immigrate due to dissatisfaction with their previous homeland. If we're going to have a genuine, philosophic discussion about this topic, then we must account for this possibility.
A government robs you like a cell phone company robs you. Either pay the bill or forfeit the service package. Neither is theft.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| I personally can't stand to think my tax money will be spent on welfare in a country where there are too many loop holes for it to be abused by practically everyone. |
Well, I can't stand to think the money I use to pay my cell phone bill goes to excessively rewarding individuals who earn more than I feel they deserve. My choices are three: advocate for change, discontinue service, or live with it. You face the exact same choices with your situation. I don't consider that tantamount to robbery. I consider it a fact of life. At heart, I think you do too, so I'm not accusing you of whining about it. Rather, I'm asserting that it demonstrates taxes are not equivalent to theft, but rather comparable to payment for services rendered. If more people viewed matters this way, we'd probably see better results from government. The fact that more people don't view matters this way is what makes me doubt their ability to look out for their own interests in a totally unregulated system.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| In asian countries like Japan and Korea people actually take care of their own parents instead of relying on government handouts, they seem to be doing okay. |
I see so many old people on a daily basis here in Korea who are very clearly not okay. That's ultimately anecdotal, so I don't think it's worth pursuing, but your, "... they seem to be doing okay," comment isn't intuitively true from my perspective.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| I think if people weren't taxed at all they would have enough wealth to donate to things they value. |
I think if people weren't taxed at all that either the average income would be lower, or the average good would be more expensive, and the only winners would be the ultra-wealthy. My solution to our disagreement is to allow citizens to vote on the model they prefer, and emigrate if they don't like the results.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| It's hard to say really because this is an experiment and the results have not been seen. |
I agree, which is another objection I have to the system in question: it's pure faith. I can understand the idea that some people would like it to be attempted, but we have lots of people who are utterly certain it will provide miraculous results. That frightens me; utter certainty and being utterly incorrect often go hand-in-hand. I have no objections if other societies want to attempt this social experiment, but I don't want to risk my own to it, particularly given how large a population we'd be risking. I don't think that's unfair of me.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| I'll just say it's a interesting concept to me and I would like to see how it would play out. |
Hey, I would too. And if it turned out well, I'd become a strong advocate of it. Results are ultimately what matters to me. But I wouldn't risk a huge population like the U.S. to satisfy my intellectual curiosity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
I don't agree at all. Government provides services, and in return, we must pay fees
|
A Randian government (police & military) only deals with protection of rights. Selling people a package of auxiliary services that the individual did not sign up for and then saying he must pay up under the penalty of force is not morally justifiable (especially the services provided actually hinder his existence).
If you mean people would have to pay for police and military and nothing else then yes they should pay only for this service, that's pretty much what Rand advocated (and I'm guessing a refusal to pay would probably mean withholding the services, not using force) . That's quite a different thing than saying we ought to pay for the entire package that only makes the government bigger and hungrier for more wealth and power over its people.
| Fox wrote: |
A government robs you like a cell phone company robs you. Either pay the bill or forfeit the service package. Neither is theft.
|
Not quite. I signed a contract with the phone company, you are born into bondage with the state unless you immigrated into it. Secondly, if I don't pay my phone bills I lose the privilege of using the phone, I'm not thrown into jail or treated as a criminal. One institution uses force, the other simply withholds services. Correct me if I'm wrong on the whole going to jail for tax evasion thing as I am not that knowledgeable about law.
| Fox wrote: |
My solution to our disagreement is to allow citizens to vote on the model they prefer, and emigrate if they don't like the results.
|
The democracy we have today does not mean people vote to make any real decisions and we simply leave it to the higher ups (who don't have our interests in mind). It seems like the illusion of choice, making people feel like they have an small opportunity to make a change. Sure, some might say it's inefficient to have everyone vote online on the internet but my impression is it doesn't sound as wasteful as the system we have now.
| Fox wrote: |
I agree, which is another objection I have to the system in question: it's pure faith |
I would disagree. My reasoning being that it is obviously something that is quantifiable/measurable. If the government stopped handing out federally backed student loans for example we can easily measure what happens to supply and demand of graduates, steady decreases in tuition. We can see the positive effect it has on graduates or people's wages in the workforce. Interpretations can be drawn and policies like this can be dropped. It's not faith, but rather would be demonstrated empirically and comprehended.
It's the government's faith in policies they create that are so destructive. Sure it's nice to believe educating your citizens is a good thing for your country but the end result of handing out student loans to everyone results in an oversupply of graduates with no jobs, mountainous debt that can never be paid off, devaluation of your degree/salary and allowing colleges to raise tuition each year. Surely if they did any analysis at all they would of pulled the plug on this years ago, instead we are going to see this bubble burst. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
I don't agree at all. Government provides services, and in return, we must pay fees
|
A Randian government (police & military) only deals with protection of rights. |
Which is still a very valuable service.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Selling people a package of auxiliary services that the individual did not sign up for and then saying he must pay up under the penalty of force is not morally justifiable (especially the services provided actually hinder his existence). |
Companies bundle services you might not want with services you genuinely want all the time. There's nothing immoral about it, it simply leaves you with a choice: accept what they're offering, try to talk them into changing their offer, or abandon dealings with them. Whether it's a cable company or a nation, there's no real difference in form.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| If you mean people would have to pay for police and military and nothing else then yes they should pay only for this service, that's pretty much what Rand advocated (and I'm guessing a refusal to pay would probably mean withholding the services, not using force) . That's quite a different thing than saying we ought to pay for the entire package that only makes the government bigger and hungrier for more wealth and power over its people. |
People have a right to collectively create whatever agreement with their government they like. The majority shouldn't be stifled by the minority in this matter; if most of us want governmental involvement in the construction of roads, for instance, the fact that the minority does not doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Rather, it just means that the minority perhaps should move to a nation more in-line with their own philosophy.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
A government robs you like a cell phone company robs you. Either pay the bill or forfeit the service package. Neither is theft.
|
Not quite. I signed a contract with the phone company, you are born into bondage with the state unless you immigrated into it. |
When I was born, I had health insurance from day one, through my parents. When I was born, I had citizenship from day one, through my parents. In both cases, my parents paid for these services in my place until I reached an age of majority, at which time I could make my own decisions. If that meant abandoning their health care plan and finding my own, so be it. If that meant abandoning their nation and finding another, so be it. Being granted a service from day one of your life due to your parents is totally consistent with other types of business interaction. You aren't born into bondage; you can leave the nation if you like, and if you hate it, you should. Hell, many things about the United States bother me, and as such, I'm not sure if I want to go back to living there.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Secondly, if I don't pay my phone bills I lose the privilege of using the phone, I'm not thrown into jail or treated as a criminal. |
Different services have different consequences for violating the terms of the contract, but one thing is universal: forfeiture of services rendered. If you violate your cell phone contract, your service is cut off. If you violate the terms of your citizenship, the government is just as entitled to cut off services to you. In this case, they do so via incarceration, because what else are they going to do with you? Deport you? Other nations probably don't want you, and setting you adrift at sea or on a deserted island or some such would be totally inhumane.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| One institution uses force, the other simply withholds services. |
The state uses force because using force is the only way to withhold its services, due to their nature. If you stop paying your apartment rent in a Randian system, but simultaneously refuse to move out, do you think the owner won't use force to evict you? I think that's a naive proposition, and I don't think you believe it, so let's stop this talk of, "force = bad" as if it were a simple, obviously true proposition. Using force to enforce the terms of an agreement is unfortunately the only way at times.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Correct me if I'm wrong on the whole going to jail for tax evasion thing as I am not that knowledgeable about law. |
I know some tax-related offenses can land you in prison, but I don't think honest, open refusal to pay your taxes is one of them. I'm fairly certain it's fraud that lands you in prison, not simply not paying, since they'd just start seizing funds instead. I'm not sure though, so I treated the discussion above as if you're correct and assumed for the sake of discussion that not paying taxes lands you in jail.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
My solution to our disagreement is to allow citizens to vote on the model they prefer, and emigrate if they don't like the results.
|
The democracy we have today does not mean people vote to make any real decisions and we simply leave it to the higher ups (who don't have our interests in mind). It seems like the illusion of choice, making people feel like they have an small opportunity to make a change. Sure, some might say it's inefficient to have everyone vote online on the internet but my impression is it doesn't sound as wasteful as the system we have now. |
I have no problems with discussions of alternative methods of representation.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
I agree, which is another objection I have to the system in question: it's pure faith |
I would disagree. My reasoning being that it is obviously something that is quantifiable/measurable. If the government stopped handing out federally backed student loans for example we can easily measure what happens to supply and demand of graduates, steady decreases in tuition. We can see the positive effect it has on graduates or people's wages in the workforce. Interpretations can be drawn and policies like this can be dropped. It's not faith, but rather would be demonstrated empirically and comprehended. |
The fact that we could empirically demonstrate it to be true doesn't mean it isn't faith to whole-heartedly believe in it now. To be clear, though, my discussion of faith is with relation to the extremist Libertarian system collectively. Individual propositions -- like your issue with federal intervention in the student loan industry -- are different, and vary on a case-by-case basis. When you say to me, "If we get the federal government out of student loans, blah blah blah will happen," that's something discussable.
Last edited by Fox on Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
There are only two possibilities in the end - Liberty or Statism.
There is no middle ground. |
Talking to you is like talking to a religious fanatic. Seriously man, reading what you write about politics and economics is like reading what an extremist Muslim writes about religion.
Submit to pure Capitalism, trust blindly in it, or suffer the wrath of the "rEVOlution". |
Fox, have you ever read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand?
If you read that you might understand why many people see taxes as legal theft backed by guns. If you can read that book and understand the arguments and still not change your world view I'll be impressed. Check out the audio book if you have spare time. |
Saw this and had to laugh a bit. I liked Atlas Shrugged, but it's philosophy is a bit of a joke. I wonder how many noble capitalists we have along the likes of John Galt, I'm guessing not many. I understand the arguments very well, but find them unimpressive. Her philosophy is like any other Utopian one, unworkable with real people. Business is about profits, the people who own the methods of production, or in more modern times stocks and positions on boards, profit from these randian ideas. If we were to argue in philosophical extremes, which is silly because they are fairly distant from reality, it would be quite easy to say the owners are looters because the wage they give their employees is far less than what the labor is worth. I'm willing to bet that unless you are one of Rands hero capitalists you have, in real terms, benefited more from the system than you have put in. Things like roads and education aren't free, did you get money from the state for college? I did, and so did everyone else in my state. Are these things free, no. Do you benefit from them, yes.
As to the add, it was quite poor. I am a bit sick of the founding fathers being used in this way. Quite frankly the situation is very different, and anyways they may have founded our nation, but that was over 200 hundred years ago, not everything is analogous. |
|
| 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
