Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - "Freedom" thread or something
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed"Freedom" thread or something
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 204205206207208 294>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 07:05
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

There's nothing inherently unselfish about democracy or socialism or any governmental system. They're all just different forms of organization. If those in power are selfish, then the resulting governments will be too. Stop treating your view of organization as a fairy tale world where everything's magically perfect. 


Haha, do you realize how much room there is in that statement for self incrimination? Stop treating your view of NO organization as a fairy tale world where everything is magically perfect....


Hahaha no organization. That's funny.

I don't. I freely admit that there will be issues, and it could fail miserably. I also admit when I'm espousing something that's pure conjectural and may develop incredibly differently than I can imagine when left to natural devices. I'm not the one saying moral transgressions go to mixed market democracies once they get kicked out of the libertarian utopia.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - July 16 2013 at 07:05
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 08:20
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 

I also tend to doubt how libertarian the Koch Brothers really are, as they helped to raise funds for Mitt Romney in 2012. 

How do you do that? (having an hyperlink on certain text). If I click on 'insert hyperlink', paste the link and OK it just displays the hyperlink path, I can't overwrite by some other text.
Ah, I already saw how, forget about it.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 09:32
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

There's nothing inherently unselfish about democracy or socialism or any governmental system. They're all just different forms of organization. If those in power are selfish, then the resulting governments will be too. Stop treating your view of organization as a fairy tale world where everything's magically perfect. 


Haha, do you realize how much room there is in that statement for self incrimination? Stop treating your view of NO organization as a fairy tale world where everything is magically perfect....
Really, socialism or command economies don't generate an unselfish population Geoff. It can be argued that in fact they cause the opposite. When people know that everybody is doing something for the worse off (paying taxes, for example, which go to welfare policies), people think they've done enough and individual help, individual charity disappears. I know I'm going to the extremes but the socialist paradise of the 20th century, the UsSR, was also the paraside of selfishness. Even in today's Europe (where I have gone two years in a row and where my sister lives), people doesn't seem too eager to help those in need beyond what the welfare state does for them. It's a known phenomenon in psychology. If eveybody does it, you don't have to. If everybody think that way, none does it.

Don't present these policies as an expression of unselfishness. They might be good or not, better than a system without a safety net or not (I think is good to have this net), but it has NOTHING to do with selfishness and unselfishness.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 10:05
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


But the lack of "perfect" competition, and thus the lack of perfect equilibrium, isn't really an argument against the free market.  Of course you never attain equilibrium.  Companies rise and fall, they gain advantages over competitors and then new companies rise up to challenge them; libertarians don't pretend that free markets will never have one business that dominates others in its area of interest.  What we claim is that dynamic competition, over time, prevents any business for obtaining a monopoly, because competition never ends.  You can't squelch competition.  It is an inherent part of free markets.  No matter how big a company gets, others continue to compete against it.  Economic theory that does not promote free markets assumes that a business is capable of eliminating it's competition.  That is not true.  That can really only happen in something like the jewel market, where you have to own the property that the jewels are on to sell them...so if you happen to be the guy who stumbles on the ruby mine no one can really compete with you.

Did you read the article I linked to?  It explains all of this very well, better than I can.  

The article only deals with monopolies in public utilities.  These are often created by govt fiat.  I am interested in monopolies attained by a dominant company.  Don't get me wrong, I am interested in competition.  And in my view, for competition to exist,  things like caps on marketshare and a bar on hostile takeovers are necessary to stop big business from misusing its clout.  In other words, maintaining free market conditions may actually require anti-monopoly rules.  Because in the absence of which, there's nothing to stop the big shark from swallowing all the small fish and controlling the entire market. 
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


Apple.  Linux.  Yahoo.  Bing.

None of the aforementioned have seriously threatened MS's domination in operating system and draft/spreadsheet software.   And that will continue to be the case until somebody, well, acquires Microsoft or it just goes bust on its own (which could take a very long time for a company of its might).  The reason is that MS Office is akin to a common business language today.  Making your documents in any other software just creates hassles for everybody else.  Back in the 90s, we had Lotus Smartsuite on our home PC.  We had no complaints with the software at all and Lotus 1-2-3 was better than the then prevailing version whatever of Excel.  But it was totally useless for any official work dad needed to do on word or excel.   Eventually we had to shift to MS and have stayed with it since then.   More recent versions aren't so bad but in earlier ones, we had to grin and bear its bugs, watch important excel documents getting corrupted for no good reason and we had no choice.  Now, I don't see how any govt legislation could have stopped this happening but all I want to point out is there is nothing in a free market to stop one company from completely gobbling up the market.  I am afraid economic theories - at least the old ones - don't stress the role of finance enough and finance makes all the difference.  The man with the largest purse wins, period - and quality be damned.

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Do you have any sources for that?  I don't dispute that you're telling the truth, I just want to know the specifics of where/how/why this is happening, because I would like to continue discussion on this point but need to see articles and such on your example so I can examine it more closely.  

I don't know if this will really throw light on the matter but here is a link anyway:

http://www.mid-day.com/entertainment/2012/nov/031112-Jab-Tak-Hai-Jaan-and-Son-of-Sardaar-makers-slug-it-out.htm

Basically, Yash Raj Films signed a deal with distributors typing up the right to show one of their films, Ek Tha Tiger, with an obligation to show the other, Jab Tak Hai Jaan.  In doing so, they shut out another film, Son of Sardaar, releasing on the same Friday as JTHJ.   The matter went to court and Yash Raj prevailed because the distributors had not been actually coerced into signing up for it.  But such practices by their nature are monopolistic and deny a fair chance to the competition to distribute their film.  Yash Raj have been notorious for crowding out other film makers from the market.  And their pockets are deep enough for them to afford it.  Sounds familiar?

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:




A few questions:

How do the MNCs get in in the first place?

Are the lawyer and accountant armies a problem with free markets - or with the justice system?

Can you still get Thumbs up in India?  Do people want it?  What if the populace just prefers Coke and Pepsi?  

1)  The MNCs get in there as govt liberalises foreign investment norms to make it easier for them to enter the market.  It's as simple as that.  The more India opens up its economy, the more it is exposed to MNC presence.  It is even touted as something desirable for the economy and I would not say either that it's an entirely bitter pill.

2)  Well, the MNCs need lawyers and accountants to work around the legal system.  If the legal system was more open, i.e., closer to the textbook definition of a free market, it would be even easier for them to set up shop.  After all, who can stop somebody wanting to set up shop and start business in a laissez faire system if he can afford it?  It is only because there are caps on the percentage of FDI that can be invested in a single company venture that they need to pay all these folks to work out the best possible way to get in.  

3)  I am not sure you got it, so let me make it clearer.   Thums Up is still the biggest brand in India.  Right, Coke purchased the brand but they did not kill it.  They simply own the brand and reap the benefits of its popularity in the market.  People still prefer Thums up, it just happens to be a Coke brand now.  The profits that would have once accrued to a domestic company are now in all probability repatriated to Cayman Islands or some other such tax haven, with some tax deduction at source, of course.  

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:



But I don't know what the situation in India is like - and I see the difference between big/small business relations in the US economy and then what might happen if huge US corporations busted into a poor country and started trying to get rid of their competition.  I'm not going to argue with you there because I'm no economist, and I don't understand all the details of a global economy and what happens when corporations from a rich country compete with small businesses from a poor country.  Teo has suggested in several places that libertarianism may not be the best system for countries with very different cultures and economic structures than the US, and I'm willing to consider that point.


I think America was originally one of the ideal countries for libertarianism, because it was an unexplored landmass to begin with, with vast natural resources to be exploited by zealous immigrants.   Maybe some of that DNA still remains in the country, that I cannot tell.  But some libertarian ideas could be very disruptive in an old and entrenched society like India and would probably serve to fill the pockets of its existing tycoons and landlords (and of course the politicians) even more.  Possibly Gerinski's reservations about libertarianism are also for similar reasons.  The social order is quite different in older societies so the opportunities thrown up by de-regulation cannot be so easily grasped by upstarts.  They tend to get browbeaten by the old boys network eventually.    Communism was most powerful in Russia and it is again an old society with royalty and all that.  People want social, rather than economic, de regulation in such places and, unfortunately, socialism and communism have offered solutions (workable or not) in this regard, not capitalism.  They want the rich to be cut down to size a little bit lest they start believing themselves to be demi gods.  It's not jealousy, which is how Americans often interpret it.  It is simply desperation. 
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 10:34
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

 

I think America was originally one of the ideal countries for libertarianism, because it was an unexplored landmass to begin with, with vast natural resources to be exploited by zealous immigrants. 
That's it, it started as a (rather) Libertarian state, most probably the closest to a Libertarian experimental state we have had in documented history. So what has it evolved into? in the utopia society its Libertarian forefathers dreamed of?
Yes a lot of wealth, but as I said before I would think it naive to attribute that simply to the libertarian policies and mentality of Americans. And besides wealth, is it a perfect society?
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 10:42
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

  And besides wealth, is it a perfect society?

Far from it - but what on this earth is?
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 12:26
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

  And besides wealth, is it a perfect society?

Far from it - but what on this earth is?

See, this is why non-Libertarians tend to treat Libertarians like you're crazy.  You complain about that, but you need to understand why it is.  Because it seems like you expect our theories to work PERFECTLY, but then you admit that your theories have never been put into practice, nor do you expect them to work perfectly.  So why is it that you have to completely break our system of government and wreak havoc on the economy all for the sake of an unproven theory that you know won't work perfectly?  Surely there is a way that we can make progress a little bit at a time without causing so much damage along the way?
My 2012 List
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 12:29
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

  And besides wealth, is it a perfect society?

Far from it - but what on this earth is?

See, this is why non-Libertarians tend to treat Libertarians like you're crazy.  You complain about that, but you need to understand why it is.  Because it seems like you expect our theories to work PERFECTLY, but then you admit that your theories have never been put into practice, nor do you expect them to work perfectly.  So why is it that you have to completely break our system of government and wreak havoc on the economy all for the sake of an unproven theory that you know won't work perfectly?  Surely there is a way that we can make progress a little bit at a time without causing so much damage along the way?

Not to go all Travis Bickle on you, but are you talking to me?
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 12:36
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

  And besides wealth, is it a perfect society?

Far from it - but what on this earth is?
I mean, the US are already the closest image we have of what the end-product a Libertarian system generates looks like, among all we have on present Earth, and you can compare it to other societies which have evolved under different paradigms.
If you like the current US society much better than any other in the world, you have a point for supporting Libertarian policies.
If you don't like the kind of society the US has become, then it should be a warning sign that Libertarian policies are not the panacea some think they are.
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 12:48
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

  And besides wealth, is it a perfect society?

Far from it - but what on this earth is?
I mean, the US are already the closest image we have of what the end-product a Libertarian system generates looks like, among all we have on present Earth, and you can compare it to other societies which have evolved under different paradigms.
If you like the current US society much better than any other in the world, you have a point for supporting Libertarian policies.
If you don't like the kind of society the US has become, then it should be a warning sign that Libertarian policies are not the panacea some think they are.

Sort of a false dichotomy, isn't it?

I think the US of the late 19th/early 20th century was probably the closest to a Libertarian system.  It's far from that now, even though it is still to the "right" of European social democracies.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 12:51
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


If you like the current US society much better than any other in the world, you have a point for supporting Libertarian policies.


That doesn't really make any sense.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 12:54
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

  And besides wealth, is it a perfect society?

Far from it - but what on this earth is?
I mean, the US are already the closest image we have of what the end-product a Libertarian system generates looks like, among all we have on present Earth, and you can compare it to other societies which have evolved under different paradigms.
If you like the current US society much better than any other in the world, you have a point for supporting Libertarian policies.
If you don't like the kind of society the US has become, then it should be a warning sign that Libertarian policies are not the panacea some think they are.

Sort of a false dichotomy, isn't it?

I think the US of the late 19th/early 20th century was probably the closest to a Libertarian system.  It's far from that now, even though it is still to the "right" of European social democracies.
Might it be a sign that Libertarian societies do not last for long and tend to naturally degenerate into power-based (while not social at all) societies?
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 12:56
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


If you like the current US society much better than any other in the world, you have a point for supporting Libertarian policies.


That doesn't really make any sense.
Why? Isn't it true that the US started as the most Libertarian country in recent history?
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 12:58
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


If you like the current US society much better than any other in the world, you have a point for supporting Libertarian policies.


That doesn't really make any sense.
Why? Isn't it true that the US started as the most Libertarian country in recent history?


Sure. It also started as a country with Washington as President. You can't conclude that if you don't like the way the country is being run now, then Washington must have run the country poorly.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 13:20
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


If you like the current US society much better than any other in the world, you have a point for supporting Libertarian policies.


That doesn't really make any sense.
Why? Isn't it true that the US started as the most Libertarian country in recent history?


Sure. It also started as a country with Washington as President. You can't conclude that if you don't like the way the country is being run now, then Washington must have run the country poorly.
Of course not, we can only conclude that what started with Washington has eventually evolved into the current US, without it being Washington's fault.
This does not mean either that if we re-run the experiment 100 times it will 100 times evolve into what current US is, we do not know, it only means that for once it was tried, this is what happened.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 13:25
^That's all fine and I agree,  but let's not get side tracked.

From that same reasoning we know that the current troubles/successes of the US have no relation to Libertarianism simply because the country was once the most Libertarian in the modern world or whatever.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 13:34
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

^That's all fine and I agree,  but let's not get side tracked.

From that same reasoning we know that the current troubles/successes of the US have no relation to Libertarianism simply because the country was once the most Libertarian in the modern world or whatever.
Not 'simply' but I suspect that the Libertarian ideology origins have had a significant role in shaping the current US society (I can't provide proof, sorry). 'I can grow out of nothing and become the master of the world and tell everybody else what I want them to do and they have to follow' sort of stuff.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 13:38
Sure. But then others things wouldn't have been affected. It's a case by case thing. You can't aggregate it. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 13:44
I clearly said 'I suspect' and 'I can't provide proof'.
The only thing I'm trying to portray is that, in the recent world's history's most notorious attempt to start a Libertarian society (the US) the end results of the try are not what idealist Libertarians thought they would be.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2013 at 15:07
Because as I've been trying to say, despite the original intentions (though I would argue even then that they weren't so libertarian) the US has not progressed in a Libertarian fashion and clearly throughout the years it has shifted to a country with an entirely different type of government as its goal which has nothing to do with the initial state of the system so to speak. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 204205206207208 294>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.285 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.