Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Anger blinds you. Without saying it, you want much of society/our resources to be run like a busienss.
Not as a business, but like one. Though you seem to admit flaws in this, its better than the "free for all" but this is a bit non sensical, for reasons we've given and you semi accept them. then go back to "better than free for all"
I bet you also want businesses heavily regulated and taxed? And if anyone says this will cost jobs maybe you'd respond "screw that, its what's right" but on the otherh and say "screw the numebrs and etc we need more jobs!"
I was there man....the hardest thing for me was accepting flaws in my thinking and giving up my rage.
It was quite surprising what happened to me, though, when I did.
Padraic wrote:
I'm just sorry that people seem to be angry and bitter. Wish nothing but happiness to everyone here, liberal and libertarian alike.
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: January 23 2013 at 11:00
The T wrote:
So what's clear now is that many people believe what they believe because of personal experiences and out of being the exact opposite of what they use to believe or be surrounded by. So we're basically saying political beliefs are gut reactions. No wonder people get upset and call names at each other like Geoff does. When the politics belief of one is so personal, so intrinsically tied to one's whole life structure, it's no wonder any mere attack on the probable validity of this will cause immediate defensive reaction which will eventually turn offensive.
That's what worries me about too much power on the hands of one person or group of persons. Too much power will enable the purging of past life's sins but through everybody else.
Funny, I've never been called names by Geoff. Rob, MoM and a few others on the other hand...You forgot to mention those people getting upset and calling others names, but I guess it's only name-calling when someone on the "other" side does it?
I think we've come to an understanding and you are one of the people here I actually enjoy disagreeing with because you do it with respect. But come on, you have to see that not everyone on your "side" acts the same way.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: January 23 2013 at 11:11
Brian, I think one difference between our views, anger aside for a moment (which yes, I admit does color my opinion), is the faith you place on the "market" to control and keep people/companies in check. Economics is not the same as say the law of gravity. I do not place faith in the "market" to control human greed and selfishness. I simply don't. And to some extent, as much as I hate extreme selfishness, we are all selfish to some degree, it is part of our experience as humans. However, I do not think it a good thing to have 7 billion (350 million here in the US) each with individualistic, selfish agendas working against each other in the hopes that that will provide the necessary checks and balances. As I've said before, there is always going to be power differentials that will determine those who win and those who lose. The question therefore isn't how do we eliminate those power differentials (govt. is only one type of power differential), but how best to use and control those differentials.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Brian, I think one difference between our views, anger aside for a moment (which yes, I admit does color my opinion), is the faith you place on the "market" to control and keep people/companies in check. Economics is not the same as say the law of gravity. I do not place faith in the "market" to control human greed and selfishness. I simply don't. And to some extent, as much as I hate extreme selfishness, we are all selfish to some degree, it is part of our experience as humans. However, I do not think it a good thing to have 7 billion (350 million here in the US) each with individualistic, selfish agendas working against each other in the hopes that that will provide the necessary checks and balances. As I've said before, there is always going to be power differentials that will determine those who win and those who lose. The question therefore isn't how do we eliminate those power differentials (govt. is only one type of power differential), but how best to use and control those differentials.
I suppose that issue of faith in the market, is just where we have to draw the line then.
Just like government, unions, corporations...I guess I just see the market as not an entity, but people.
At least there no one has legal authority of force over others.
It also is not perfect, and my faith is not unwavering like others here.
I also don't think in that world you imagine, it'll be a bloodbath of billions trying to kill each other for every penny. We are far too lazy
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: January 23 2013 at 11:52
I don't want to comment on the posts above but just want to say that my practical experience of dealing with govt and business has pushed me gradually from a leftist to a more centrist position, if I might call it that (and I don't like to use these terms left/centre/right). I am in favour of progressive taxation and little to no "investor friendly" policies that bleed the budget just to attract business. However, I am not naive enough to believe that any good will come out of the money put in the govt's pocket and I only want some checks and balances on large corporations that almost resort to bullying and arm twisting govts to get what they want, nothing more. An entitlement culture is dangerous and in the long run makes people who could be hard working, lazy, complacent and indifferent - that is the flipside of big government. The flipside of limited govt intervention is rapidly rising inequality, concentration of power in the hands of the rich and a breakdown of social mores that make everyday life a bit less tiresome, however much intellectuals might disdain them. I really do not know that one is much better than the other and good govt is probably about striking a difficult balance.
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: January 23 2013 at 12:00
rogerthat wrote:
I don't want to comment on the posts above but just want to say that my practical experience of dealing with govt and business has pushed me gradually from a leftist to a more centrist position, if I might call it that (and I don't like to use these terms left/centre/right). I am in favour of progressive taxation and little to no "investor friendly" policies that bleed the budget just to attract business. However, I am not naive enough to believe that any good will come out of the money put in the govt's pocket and I only want some checks and balances on large corporations that almost resort to bullying and arm twisting govts to get what they want, nothing more. An entitlement culture is dangerous and in the long run makes people who could be hard working, lazy, complacent and indifferent - that is the flipside of big government. The flipside of limited govt intervention is rapidly rising inequality, concentration of power in the hands of the rich and a breakdown of social mores that make everyday life a bit less tiresome, however much intellectuals might disdain them. I really do not know that one is much better than the other and good govt is probably about striking a difficult balance.
We may disagree on where exactly that balance lies, I wouldn't know without talking to you more, but I agree with a lot of what you said there, especially your last sentence. I've been saying all along that the best system is where private power and public power are balanced against each other in such a way that neither can become too tyrannical. Don't see why that concept is so hard to understand for so many.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: January 23 2013 at 12:27
^But Doc, what you propose is far from that balance. If you make government so powerful as you want, it is close to that level that allows it to become tyrannical. But, even worse, it gets so big that the corporations and private power you dislike so much are the ones that have the economic strength to become powerfull allies of that big government. Thus, both acquire levels of power that only leave regular middle and low class people trapped in between, powerless both against public and private power.
I don't want to comment on the posts above but just want to say that my practical experience of dealing with govt and business has pushed me gradually from a leftist to a more centrist position, if I might call it that (and I don't like to use these terms left/centre/right). I am in favour of progressive taxation and little to no "investor friendly" policies that bleed the budget just to attract business. However, I am not naive enough to believe that any good will come out of the money put in the govt's pocket and I only want some checks and balances on large corporations that almost resort to bullying and arm twisting govts to get what they want, nothing more. An entitlement culture is dangerous and in the long run makes people who could be hard working, lazy, complacent and indifferent - that is the flipside of big government. The flipside of limited govt intervention is rapidly rising inequality, concentration of power in the hands of the rich and a breakdown of social mores that make everyday life a bit less tiresome, however much intellectuals might disdain them. I really do not know that one is much better than the other and good govt is probably about striking a difficult balance.
Well said.
Also to Doc, we get bogged down in theory and the overal view of this thread is quite anarchistic...just FYI
I personally agree with the sentiment of balance. Clearly we have quite a different view of where that balance should be, but no doubt there is a role for government. To try and stop anti competitive practices, like those landlords you've experienced, to provide some essentials (that benefit everyone equally) a limited safety net, and even national health insurance possibly.
I think this is pretty realistic and willing to put aside dogma, and even Hayek argued for such things...
No doubt, there should be no subsidies to big business, "coprorate welfare" bailouts, investor friendly policies.
No wealth redistribution from lower to higher, or amongst anyone.
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: January 23 2013 at 13:23
Strange, I agree with everything you just posted about what you think are good goals (except I would not limit the safety net probably as much as you would and would count national health insurance among a list of necessities). And I don't have a problem with wealth redistribution from higher to lower to some degree.
EDIT: @Teo, funny, but I think your way gives far to much power to the private sector allowing it to become anti-competitive, oppressive and tyrannical. Progressive taxation, a healthy safety net and enough regulations to protect the weak from the strong, but only so much as is necessary to do that. How is that anything more than we had prior to the Reagan revolution? We didn't devolve into tyranny then?
Edited by The Doctor - January 23 2013 at 13:26
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Strange, I agree with everything you just posted about what you think are good goals (except I would not limit the safety net probably as much as you would and would count national health insurance among a list of necessities). And I don't have a problem with wealth redistribution from higher to lower to some degree.
Well that is interesting!
Just trying to bridge some gaps, tis all. And since in the past you've talked about how there are lots of redistribtuion from lower to higher, and how we support big businesses...that yes, that is correct and I also am against it.
But yes, no doubt you support more, and larger, programs than I (while I think a generic, lump sum payment thing like Milton Friedman advocated is pretty smart) and certainly want a more progressive, redistibtuist system but many of my goals are the same now as they were before. Just different means, and who exactly should pony up and how much.
That was fun.
Soooo back to what we should do about the Federal Reserve? Which could be more important than taxes, programs and all this other stuff.
I still can't decide if I'd support a full out abolition of it. Still thinking, and I need a smart guy to llama to help me with some things. Like if a gold standard is honestly realistic today/its impact on trade/its impact during recessions.
Or if its possible for a fiat system to work without one.
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: January 23 2013 at 14:56
Well, you may be surprised to hear me say this, but honestly I don't know enough about the federal reserve issue to comment intelligently on it. I do think a fiat system would be the best though if it was I who got to control the value of the money. Suddenly, mine will be worth millions of times its value and everyone else's would be worthless.
So, I will leave you to your discussion and with this thought: Government rules!!!!!!!!! Wooot woot!
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
All input is welcomed but admittedly I kinda want to hear some of llama's thoughts
Nah Im not surprised, its a crazy subject. Ive been reading and thinking about it and I really am all over the place about the Fed and $$$. At least I need some clarifying.
I thought abolition of central banks and a return to the gold standard were in the libertarian ten commandments.
Well I never was one for commandments.
I see advantages to both, but there's just so many details and things to think about. I'm much more comfortable with ending the Fed (at the very least limiting its power) than a gold standard at the moment.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.477 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
"Freedom" thread or something
Topic Options
Padraic wrote:
