Political Theory

Re: JBS YouTube : Political Spectrum

jimeckland — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 02:00:53 GMT

This is the only sensible political Spectrum out there. It's amazing that the enemies of "Freedom", namely those on the Left, distort the proper definitions of terms

with the intent to "Mislead" or "Deceive" citizens into eventually voting themselves into "Bondage". Only a people who has no choice or is not informed with "The Truth"

would ever vote themselves into "Slavery". EMBRACE FREEDOM NOT KARL MARX !!!! Fight the political philosophy of Totalitarians !!!!

The USA was designed as " A Constitutional Republic".......

Jim Eckland

PLEASE JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM !!!!!

Re: JBS YouTube : Political Spectrum

Jon Irenicus — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:48:31 GMT

Yeah, it amazes me how collectivist Randroids (note: these aren't real Objectivists) become when it comes to national defence and the like.

-Jon

Re: JBS YouTube : Political Spectrum

ChaseCola — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:04:30 GMT

Ha ha, I was an Objectivist for about 2 days until I found this site, It really is contradictory. Respect Individualism, but if a country is an enemy you can kill every last man, woman and child in that country because they somehow let the evils of that government exist. If there are any Iraqi objectivists we better watch out because they are going to kill every single american because we let our government exist.

Objectivist=libertarian terrorist(oxymoron)

Re: JBS YouTube : Political Spectrum

wombatron — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 05:39:46 GMT

BlackSheep:

libertarianpaternalist:
Or as Micheal Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine, wrote in his book Why People Believe In Weird Things "Objectivism is the most unlikely of cults"

If you guys don't mind changing the topic a little bit -- I think we have beaten him too much with the monopoly thing :) -- I wonder why Objectivism is seen as a cult. I've only read Atlas Shrugged from Ayn Rand and it seemed more like offering a different perspective in the role of government and the individual. It didn't strike me as different as Progressivism and related philosophies that advocate it's demeaning for people to do charity, and they should instead advocate government to step in, raising everybody's taxes. I certainely didn't got her evil, cold-hearted accusations; she just seemed to advocate to let people alone to pursuit their values and that people should pursuit their values, and she even gave examples of charitable action in the John Galt speech. She uses the word selfish in a broaded sense, as it was my understanding of that particular book.

Anyway, I'm not aware of the activities from any Ayn Rand groups -- is it some network like the Freemasons with some rituals and stuff? maybe smoking dollar-signed cigarettes? :).

Her actions, unfortunately, spoke loader than her words. The exact details could probably be explained by someone who lived through it (I'm sure there are some old (ex-, neo-, post-, etc.) Objectivsts hanging out here ).

Re: JBS YouTube : Political Spectrum

BlackSheep — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:34:08 GMT

libertarianpaternalist:
Or as Micheal Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine, wrote in his book Why People Believe In Weird Things "Objectivism is the most unlikely of cults"

If you guys don't mind changing the topic a little bit -- I think we have beaten him too much with the monopoly thing :) -- I wonder why Objectivism is seen as a cult. I've only read Atlas Shrugged from Ayn Rand and it seemed more like offering a different perspective in the role of government and the individual. It didn't strike me as different as Progressivism and related philosophies that advocate it's demeaning for people to do charity, and they should instead advocate government to step in, raising everybody's taxes. I certainely didn't got her evil, cold-hearted accusations; she just seemed to advocate to let people alone to pursuit their values and that people should pursuit their values, and she even gave examples of charitable action in the John Galt speech. She uses the word selfish in a broaded sense, as it was my understanding of that particular book.

Anyway, I'm not aware of the activities from any Ayn Rand groups -- is it some network like the Freemasons with some rituals and stuff? maybe smoking dollar-signed cigarettes? :).

Re: JBS YouTube : Political Spectrum

BlackSheep — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:14:03 GMT

libertarianpaternalist:
The market is most definitely a tool, what is it else? It is not the end but the means to an end. In my opinion the only means.

Well it's a tool for the both parties involved in a exchange; people who talk of how it is a tool are just advocates of an external entity regulating, taxing, etc and otherwise imposing controls on how people can interact.

I certainely don't see a market as an institution though I guess you could create some pseudo market environment. A market is simply a social phenomenon, as people specialize in something they do well and repeaditly make offers for exchange, further structuring prices and dividing labor. If you interfer with it too much, people will just go back to a black market.

Re: JBS YouTube : Political Spectrum

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:03:10 GMT

Please stop peddling misinformation, lies and nonsense to further your agenda. Dominick Armentano has eviscerated the myth of market monopolies. If you took the time to actually read the materials involved, as opposed to regurgitating nonsense about free markets you'd know that. I do not care what circles you move in nor what you think of Rand. I have very low tolerance for ideological cowardice. Moreover, do not expect me to take your fear of monopolies seriously when you advocate the paragon of all monopolies itself - the State.

-Jon

Re: JBS YouTube : Political Spectrum

Deist — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:21:23 GMT

libertarianpaternalist:
The risk and amount of investment needed is virtually impossible to achieve without some form of government intervention

I see where your coming from but those are usually the areas where their should not be any investment, especially if they lack enough of a profit to cover the initial investment. Profits are the signal to the business owner of consumer demand. Also what industries are we inquiring about in this scenario?

libertarianpaternalist:
The old monopolies have for the most part become oligopolies, few actors and very limited competition

You are right. Just check out the nature of progressive taxation in keeping smaller business from amassing post tax wealth. Progressive taxation is the most effective in ensuring a caste system. Also check how much money these oligopolies get from government programs at the expense of the taxpayer. For a list of just some of the United States programs that benefit these huge corporations check out these government deparments: Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Export-Import Bank, the Federal Reserve. Do not forget the huge nature of the Military Industrial complex and the mules at its trough such as Boeing, Raytheon Lockheed etc. Of course there is also the usual subsidy that can be found in the annual federal budget such as in the agricultural department (money to agribusiness) or simple construction projects. Many people estimate that the amount of corporate welfare in the United States is $92 billion a year.

libertarianpaternalist:
I have also a very difficult time in understanding how you can hold the tenet that a totally unrestrained market could work in reality in today’s world..

I think on this issue it can work in todays reality but it might be unrealistic to think we can get to such a state with the level of people dependent on government at this time. That does not mean that it cannot work it just means there are many people who do not want to see it happen despite that it can function (or in spite that it would work).

Re: JBS YouTube : Political Spectrum

Torsten — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:15:20 GMT

wombatron:
Read some Austrian economics before you post on an Austrian forum.

Whom do you recommend?

@ libertarianpaternalist,

Markets are institutions or set's of institutions, where people do exchanges. Just make sure you do that kinds of exchanges with people who exchange for what you reasonably expect from them.

Re: JBS YouTube : Political Spectrum

scineram — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:53:22 GMT

libertarianpaternalist:
Especially so in my country of birth Sweden as near as you can come to a voluntary socialist state. We Swedish libertarians joke that "Sweden has not socialized its economy but its people". Swedes have become slaves under the welfare system, 60 % of the population are totally dependent on subsidies, grants and salaries to live. The Welfare interventionist state has now become self perpetuating until it collapses under its own weight.

Not really. There is nothing unfree about Sweden. It is just nudging and nurturing its citizens to make the best choices and use their freedoms in the most efficient direction. In a paternalistic yet libertarian way.

Re: JBS YouTube : Political Spectrum

Juan — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:44:46 GMT

libertarianpaternalist:
A total and free market always leads to monopolies, the economic version of the Hobbesian state, even Adam Smith ....

Priceless!!

Re: JBS YouTube : Political Spectrum

libertarianpaternalist — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:29:20 GMT

I wrote:

The oxymoron Libertarian Paternalist is an alias I use …A better alias might be Libertarian Pragmatist since I am not interested in libertarian theory but making society more freer both on a social and economic level.

The state never safeguards individuals rights, it guards the rights of the state and its cronies.

I am also a firm believer that you must start out finding what you call “Economic verities” trough deduction beginning and from human behavior. I am a firm believer in the theories of Pavlov, Skinner and evolutionary psychology.

For me capitalism as an economic system is based on evolutionary principles and are in my opinion also based on behavior psychology. It is from this position I hold that anarchy does not work, it is against human nature to live in anarchy. Socialism, Marx and Freud, psychoanalysis is in my opinion totally against human nature, human behavior. There is no subconscious nor does a clean slate exist, Tabula Rasa.

As regards to Nugde by Tahler/Sunstein I am not an adherent to their ideas. They are Behavior Economists, a sneak attack against capitalism now that socialism, strong paternalism is no longer a viable option. I conform to professor Becker’s rational economics. He has now managed to disprove some of the Behavior Economist thesis’s that rational economics cannot explain everything.

You might read with interest read Michael Shermers latest book is called The Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics and it tries to answer questions about irrationality and why capitalism is an evolutionary consequence.

You can view a Podcast from Cato Institute’s homepage Cato Institute: The Mind of the Market: The Case for ...

In his new book, The Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics, Michael Shermer examines such questions as:

How did we evolve from ancient hunter-gatherers to modern consumer-traders? Why are people so irrational when it comes to money and business?

He argues that the new science of evolutionary economics provides an answer to both of those questions. Shermer shows how evolution and economics are both examples of a larger phenomenon of complex adaptive systems. Along the way, he answers such provocative questions as, Do our tribal roots mean that we will always be a sucker for brands? How is the biochemical joy of sex similar to the rewards of business cooperation?

How can nations increase trust within and between their borders?

Finally, Shermer considers the consequences of globalization and why free trade promises to build alliances between nations. Michael Shermer is the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, and the author of Why People Believe Weird Things and Why Darwin Matters.

Re: JBS YouTube : Political Spectrum

Solomon — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:44:41 GMT

libertarianpaternalist:
Tell me where anarchy has led to a free liberal democratic society? Please tell me how anarchy can work in practice?

Tell us where a state has consistently safeguarded individual rights, or for that matter, where a state has not devolved into despotism in one form or another. Hmm, maybe it's the state that's utopian.

As has been stated and repeated ad nauseum, making evidentialist arguments for the basis of a political-economic theory is pointless: if all factors in an experiment cannot be controlled then the scientific method does not apply. Economic verities must be found via deduction beginning with necessary or self-evident truths (e.g. the reality of human action).

If you're going to participate in this forum I humbly recommend that you familiarize yourself with some of the articles and books in the literature section to see what we're "about". I suggest you start with David Gordon's critique of that book you were advertising.

http://mises.org/story/2965

Re: JBS YouTube : Political Spectrum

libertarianpaternalist — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:32:05 GMT

It was not intended as a sarcasm but was intended to point out that if you live in a world where you could start over on a clean slate, Tabula Rasa ( erase all memory of and all institutions economic and political, corporations, legislations, nations etc.) we might be able to discern if market anarchism works or if monopolies are "benevolent".

But we live in an imperfect world. Monopolies tend to as the other writers justly pointed out been the outcome of earlier government intervention, railways, telecommunications, utilities etc. These are investments that are extremely difficult for individuals or corporations to make by themselves. The profits are huge, once the investments are made there is little cost in running the systems. The risk and amount of investment needed is virtually impossible to achieve without some form of government intervention. The old monopolies have for the most part become oligopolies, few actors and very limited competition.

So my post was not to be meant as sarcasm but more to get the debate to where I am at. How do we get to where we want? How can this be achieved in real life?

If you ask the ordinary voter for deregulation and abolishing of all government authority, you will not even get percentage points of the vote. In Europe in particular the tradition of extremely strong central governments, extreme regulations and State intervention; in the most minuscule part of your personal and economic life are legion. Especially so in my country of birth Sweden as near as you can come to a voluntary socialist state. We Swedish libertarians joke that "Sweden has not socialized its economy but its people". Swedes have become slaves under the welfare system, 60 % of the population are totally dependent on subsidies, grants and salaries to live. The Welfare interventionist state has now become self perpetuating until it collapses under its own weight.

In Sweden I am considered on the lunatic fringe of the political spectrum when it comes to economic freedom. It is even the case it comes to personal freedom. On this site I seem to be looked upon some kind of John Maynard Keynes follower.

I do not believe in revolution, anarchy but in slow steps of progression. I have also a very difficult time in understanding how you can hold the tenet that a totally unrestrained market could work in reality in today’s world..

My father’s country of birth Estonia has become one of the freest market economies on the planet, it has as a result one of the strongest economies. It went from a totally regulated socialist economy, to chaos and within the span of 10 years to a virtually perfect market economy. Estonia applied Friedman and Hayek. So chaos can produce change but it does not operate in a vacuum.

Once again I apologize to you all, I did not intend to be sarcastic. I was only frustrated since I wanted a practical discussion not a theoretical, ideological one.

Re: JBS YouTube : Political Spectrum

Brainpolice — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:48:17 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

I haven't read Smith. But if he does maintain that monopolies are the inevitable outcome of free markets, he's dead wrong, as is any other economist who maintains so.

-Jon

Smith believed in a primitive form of the labor theory of value. Marx took his analysis and ran with it - in a notably different direction, to be fair to Smith.