51–60 of 373 posts
This is a remarkably sensible speech. The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile. It's a juvenil…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing people that write these articles don't acknowledge was how fucked up things were in the USA, even in the 'great' times. The 50's and 60's were a booming time for the economy and middle class. But black people still had their lines to wait in, had to sit in the back of the bus, and we had 'colored' drinking fountains. Things have came a long, long way since then. Things might not be perfect and there are bit…
But the US population as a whole has slid backwards in power and monetary means over the last thirty years. The shenanigans that allowed the elite to walk over the working class had their roots in the late 70's and 80's with the shift to the right and the "Greed is Good" era.
This is a remarkably sensible speech. The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile. It's a juvenil…
The libertarian and anti-government sentiments aren't saying that we shouldn't be all in this together, but that we shouldn't be forced to be all in this together. That difference is what the entire argument is about. Few people are saying saying "let's not do this" for some value of "this", they're saying "let's not force everyone to do this". That's a very profound difference, it's why having the government make an…
And while this makes sense from a naive perspective, it always rapidly breaks down in reality. That's why Simon, and others, call it juvenile. The complexity isn't hard to see: just use one level of meta.
Given an action or policy or whatever S, have the policy S' of "Do not force everyone to do S". Now take S' as the policy S, and have the new policy S'' of "Do not force everyone to not force everyone to do S."
This isn't contrived. The paradox of tolerance has been a major problem in liberal philosophy for a long, long time. The simplistic notion of "Don't force them" just refuses to engage with any kind of depth, and in doing so, perverts and defeats itself.
This is also assuming that the relevant species of libertarianism under discussion isn't purely economic fundamentalism; that is, it has actual concerns for social libertarianism rather than vapid one-off claims that permit oppression by failing to oppose it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The libertarian and anti-government sentiments aren't saying that we shouldn't be all in this together, but that we shouldn't be forced to be all in this together. That difference is what the entire argument is about. Few people are saying saying "let's not do this" for some value of "this", they're saying "let's not force everyone to do this". That's a very profound difference, it's why having the government make an…
That argument is tiresome. Many libertarians want to enforce a very particular and ahistorical version of property rights, one dictated from above and with a studied blindness for the reason we've invented the group of rights we think of as property. They want to subject everyone to a society where state violence is used for and only on behalf of people who in the past were granted monopoly access to some material go…
I'm pointing out that whatever your political leaning you don't "just" get the government involved. Even if you think you should have a larger government than you have now the question is what kind of larger government, and once you make the wrong choice there's a huge inertia in the system that makes correcting that choice very hard.
So even people that agree that government should do more aren't easily brought on the bandwagon of the something the government wants to do being the right version of that "more".
This is a remarkably sensible speech. The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile. It's a juvenil…
To me the question is, "Who decides the allocation of the burdens and benefits?"
That answer is obvious. And it's not impartial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As well as Smith, I am reminded of Bastiat: “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state…
If government were not as influential as you claim, there is absolutely no reason the wealthy would use the resources they buy power with to provide goods and services, especially to the poor and needy who cannot afford them as is. In fact, you completely ignore the robber barons and a time when less regulation DID exist, and society was even less free and equal. There is NO such thing as a truly free market. Free ma…
Government force is always going to result in unintended, negative consequences. Those socialistic programs you laud, with the high taxes, intrusive regulations, and government debt, are a net drag on the economy.
Working together voluntarily is vastly superior to being compelled by force, however well intentioned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The libertarian and anti-government sentiments aren't saying that we shouldn't be all in this together, but that we shouldn't be forced to be all in this together. That difference is what the entire argument is about. Few people are saying saying "let's not do this" for some value of "this", they're saying "let's not force everyone to do this". That's a very profound difference, it's why having the government make an…
That argument is tiresome. Many libertarians want to enforce a very particular and ahistorical version of property rights, one dictated from above and with a studied blindness for the reason we've invented the group of rights we think of as property. They want to subject everyone to a society where state violence is used for and only on behalf of people who in the past were granted monopoly access to some material go…
This is a remarkably sensible speech. The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile. It's a juvenil…
The libertarian and anti-government sentiments aren't saying that we shouldn't be all in this together, but that we shouldn't be forced to be all in this together. That difference is what the entire argument is about. Few people are saying saying "let's not do this" for some value of "this", they're saying "let's not force everyone to do this". That's a very profound difference, it's why having the government make an…
That's the kind of facile, juvenile argument the OP decries in this article. To make an analogy, I could equally say, "I shouldn't be forced to be in a family. Families are great and everything, but why do I have to have one?"
Well guess what, I have one because I'm a human being and got born into one. You're an American (or a Canadian or a Briton or whatever). You are part of a society and part of a nation whether you like it or not. So let's make it work for everyone.
This is a remarkably sensible speech. The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile. It's a juvenil…
The libertarian and anti-government sentiments aren't saying that we shouldn't be all in this together, but that we shouldn't be forced to be all in this together. That difference is what the entire argument is about. Few people are saying saying "let's not do this" for some value of "this", they're saying "let's not force everyone to do this". That's a very profound difference, it's why having the government make an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As well as Smith, I am reminded of Bastiat: “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state…
> The problem in the US isn't capitalism, it's that the government interferes extensively in the economy. Well... maybe the problem is that the economy interferes extensively in the government. > Building a society is the responsibility of each individual who values it. Using government force in pursuit of that goal leads only to the co-option and disenfranchisement Simon complains about. Individuals have to band tog…
Only when the people banding together claim a monopoly on the use of force to achieve their goals. This is exactly the distinction that Bastiat describes.