Why do conservatives hate Obama?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Sword of Apollo

Government regulation ... breed corruption.

Evidence? Broad brush blanket statements ought to be a giant red flag to anyone who is in a skeptics forum.

I'll ask you again, please to show a list of flourishing nations that have no government regulation?

Here is a list of nations that have regulation that are also highest in standard of living and GDP.

Originally Posted by Sword of Apollo

Why did the government create and subsidize Fannie and Freddie, then? If the risks were justified, why would government involvement be needed? Of course there were also a lot of fully private mortgages that were "justified," assuming that the government-created housing bubble would continue forever. But then reality caught up with the Fed and the market. Oops.

The govt didn't force anyone to act with malfeasance. The govt didn't force anyone to hide toxic assets in complex derivatives. Trying to pawn it all off on Freddie and Fannie might help soothe over your dissonance but that's is not the source of the bank meltdown.

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

How did we recover from the Republican Great Depression?

The European Civil War Part 2.

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by Sword of Apollo

The housing/banking crisis was essentially caused by the Fed policy of keeping interest rates too low and the government policy of subsidizing overly risky loans/mortgages to (financially) unworthy home-buyers, via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

All this was done with the alleged intention of helping everyone own their own home. ("Oh, wouldn't it be so great if we could help everyone to own their own home, it's the American Dream...!" yada, yada, yada.) In the process, the various arms of government succeeded in generating a huge boom-bust cycle. In the boom, we build up the house of cards (home prices); in the bust, the cards come crashing down (foreclosures.).

Total wingnut fantasy.

Quote:

If the government would leave the economy alone, we'd have a near-constant (real) boom, with minor market corrections every so often.

Total wingnut fantasy.

[Sword of Apollo]

Originally Posted by RandFan

404

No. Not that these were not contributing factors. They most certainly were not the prime factors.

Nonsense. I'm a Rand fan and even I know that's a load of ****. I'll ask you what I ask everyone else. Show me? Show me the list of utopias flourishing nations that government has a laissez-faire approach to the economy? Here's a list of nations that don't just leave the economy alone. They are highest in GDP and well being. That includes nations that are rated highest in economic freedom. So, we can argue if there is too much regulation or if the regulation is bad but the idea of "hands off" is quite debunked.

There never has been a complete laissez-faire capitalist system, so we don't have any full utopias for reference. What we do have is a general inverse correlation between degree of regulation and economic well-being. If you look at the list of countries with the highest HDI (non-inequality adjusted) and compare it to the Heritage Indexes of Economic Freedom, you tend to find that the most free countries are also the best off. (The reason I wouldn't use the inequality adjusted HDI is: 1.-- I don't know how it's calculated, 2.-- I don't think there's any inherent value to equality of outcome. Different people with different levels of ability and motivation are going to have different incomes with equality before the law, and that's perfectly fine.)

Strictly speaking, the most important measure of the value of freedom is not the absolute well-being of those in a country, but the rate of change of the factors that constitute well-being, such as mean real income (monetary income divided by price index.) This is especially important to remember when comparing systems across time. People commonly make the error of comparing the absolute standard of living of late 19th-Century America to that of today. What they should be comparing are the rates of change of the average standard of living. The Western world, today, has had the benefit of much more development, so even though it's much more regulated than 19th Century America, it has a better absolute standard of living.

(BTW, I wasn't ignoring you, RandFan, I just didn't have time to respond more, earlier. I'll add some statistics and respond to some of the other comments tomorrow, hopefully.)

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Sword of Apollo

There never has been a complete laissez-faire capitalist system, so we don't have any full utopias for reference. What we do have is a general inverse correlation between degree of regulation and economic well-being. If you look at the list of countries with the highest HDI (non-inequality adjusted) and compare it to the Heritage Indexes of Economic Freedom, you tend to find that the most free countries are also the best off. (The reason I wouldn't use the inequality adjusted HDI is: 1.-- I don't know how it's calculated, 2.-- I don't think there's any inherent value to equality of outcome. Different people with different levels of ability and motivation are going to have different incomes with equality before the law, and that's perfectly fine.)

I'm going to set aside your assertion, I don't think the index is that accurate to make that kind of determination (we've debated that point at length and a few people have demonstrated that the index and other similar indexes can be manipulated to alter the ranking to some degree within each category). The point isn't about the individual rankings but the trend from high to medium to low. Also, your point about equality is a bit bizarre. A society high in inequality is not much of a society. We could debate all of this but it's off topic. Let's stay focused for the moment. I only have one point, regulation is requisite of a flourishing society. ALL of those nations have regulations. You can't name any nations that don't because the idea is silly and absurd. Now, we can debate how much regulation and the difference between good and bad regulation but that's not the point at hand. Right?

Quote:

Strictly speaking, the most important measure of the value of freedom is not the absolute well-being of those in a country, but the rate of change of the factors that constitute well-being, such as mean real income (monetary income divided by price index.) This is especially important to remember when comparing systems across time. People commonly make the error of comparing the absolute standard of living of late 19th-Century America to that of today. What they should be comparing are the rates of change of the average standard of living. The Western world, today, has had the benefit of much more development, so even though it's much more regulated than 19th Century America, it has a better absolute standard of living.

Interesting, debatable, but entirely beside the point. We could discuss and debate them but at the moment they are pointless to the discussion at hand. You can't have a flourishing nation without regulation. The question is how much regulation and what kind of regulation but not "if" there will be regulation. And I think we can now agree that there are no flourishing societies without regulations, right?

Quote:

(BTW, I wasn't ignoring you, RandFan, I just didn't have time to respond more, earlier. I'll add some statistics and respond to some of the other comments tomorrow, hopefully.)

I might be interested in having a discussion with you on some of your claims. I most certainly disagree with much of it. Not that you don't have some points BTW. You do but, IMO, they are not as strong as I think you suppose. Thing is that's not the issue at hand. No need to post statistics until we address your claim about regulation. Broad brush, blanket statements are not conducive to skepticism and critical thinking. Regulation is requisite of flourishing nations. Nations like Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia, rated highest for economic freedom, have regulations, right? Would you be willing to entertain the idea that regulations are not a priori good or bad? They are just the rules for how to act in a society. All I'm trying to do is falsify your over the top broad brushed claim. Regulation isn't some evil. They are just rules. They can hurt business and breed corruption but they can also help and reduce corruption. Regulations can have good or bad results depending on many variables. To simply dismiss all of them as bad is to do so without any basis.

[Francesca R]

There's plenty of data to mine on UN HDI and the Heritage/WSJ Index of Economic Freedom.

Below is for a list of countries approx G20 for the latest values. For some reason Japan, New Zealand and Singapore are missing from the HDI

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

That worked so well in the 19th century.

Oh please. You think the government was leaving the economy alone in the 19th century?

Collusion with the local government was an essential component of robber barony in any significant American market.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Sword of Apollo

There never has been a complete laissez-faire capitalist system, so we don't have any full utopias for reference. What we do have is a general inverse correlation between degree of regulation and economic well-being. If you look at the list of countries with the highest HDI (non-inequality adjusted) and compare it to the Heritage Indexes of Economic Freedom, you tend to find that the most free countries are also the best off. (The reason I wouldn't use the inequality adjusted HDI is: 1.-- I don't know how it's calculated, 2.-- I don't think there's any inherent value to equality of outcome. Different people with different levels of ability and motivation are going to have different incomes with equality before the law, and that's perfectly fine.)

Strictly speaking, the most important measure of the value of freedom is not the absolute well-being of those in a country, but the rate of change of the factors that constitute well-being, such as mean real income (monetary income divided by price index.) This is especially important to remember when comparing systems across time. People commonly make the error of comparing the absolute standard of living of late 19th-Century America to that of today. What they should be comparing are the rates of change of the average standard of living. The Western world, today, has had the benefit of much more development, so even though it's much more regulated than 19th Century America, it has a better absolute standard of living.

(BTW, I wasn't ignoring you, RandFan, I just didn't have time to respond more, earlier. I'll add some statistics and respond to some of the other comments tomorrow, hopefully.)

I'm not trying to start an argument or a flame war. I just want to understand your position a bit better.

Assume a libertarian president appointed 12 libertarian judges approved by a libertarian congress.

1) is it safe to assume that OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration ) and MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration) and related legislation would be dismantled?

2) if all that happened, would the number of deaths per ton of coal mined in 2021 be more than, less, than, or equal to the number of deaths per ton of coal mined in 2011?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

There's plenty of data to mine on UN HDI and the Heritage/WSJ Index of Economic Freedom.

Below is for a list of countries approx G20 for the latest values. For some reason Japan, New Zealand and Singapore are missing from the HDI

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...eab451d61b.jpg

For some reason? Like for some reason Silverstein said "pull it"?

[Ladewig]

Getting back on topic.

If President Obama said, "I now see the error of my ways. I will ask the RNC to name the exact people that they want in my cabinet and as heads of executive branch agencies, and I will follow their instructions to the letter," would any conservatives still hate him? If so why?

[Random]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Getting back on topic.

If President Obama said, "I now see the error of my ways. I will ask the RNC to name the exact people that they want in my cabinet and as heads of executive branch agencies, and I will follow their instructions to the letter," would any conservatives still hate him? If so why?

Yes. The current form of the Republican party is in the hands of hardcore authoritarians. Authoritarians don't care if you submit to their positions, authoritarians care about the act of making you submit.

Yes, if Obama agreed to cave in to every existing Republican demand, they would be happy for a time, but then they would start jonesing for their next fix of submission. So they would have more demands, and force Obama to submit to those. And if they ran out of demands they would be forced to make up whole new demands about things no one ever cared about before, just so they could get Obama to submit to those so they could get their next fix. Thats how you go from a reasonable and enlightened culture with major advancements in art, architecture and science, to a bunch of yahoos beating men up in the street because their beards are not long enough.

This is also why Obamas "post-partisan" strategy is so monumentally stupid. The GOP doesn't want to win the war, they want to win battles, and are perfectly prepared to start new ones if none are available.

[jerrywayne]

Republicans have very little to offer the country. They are trying to bring back the pre-Progressive era America of a laissez faire, Darwin economy. Social and economic inequalities that would be brought back by such a social shift are agreeable to Republican sensibilities. This political affair is sustainable by a voting public only if the opposing political party can be substantially damaged by tireless propaganda.

When JFK was killed in Dallas, the city's newspaper had run an ad from a right-wing group that was a mock WANTED poster, charging Kennedy with TREASON!

When Jimmy Carter was running for president I received a flyer on my door-step that charged Carter with being a COMMUNIST!

During the Clinton administration, the right-wing media seriously entertained the thoughts that Clinton had as governor operated a cocaine traffic, was possibly responsible for a murder (Vince Foster) during his early days as President, and whose educational reforms were deliberate machine ushering in a dumbing down of America in order to set up a fascist New World Order. This is just a small sampling of anti-Clinton rhetoric.

Now we have Obama who the right-wing is portraying as a serial liar, a non-American Muslim, who is deliberately trying to destroy the economy in order to ditch the Constitution and initiate a fascist dictatorship. And he might be the Anti-Christ too!

This is paranoid politics that has migrated from Bircher mimeographs in the 1960's to today's mainstream TV (Fox) and radio (Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Levine, etc) and the floor of Congress.

If anyone thinks I overstate, just ask someone who listens to Beck about Obama and you will hear some incredible things absolutely decoupled from reality, and that person will not budge one inch from the right-wing sponsored propaganda.

[Sword of Apollo]

Originally Posted by RandFan

[...] I only have one point, regulation is requisite of a flourishing society. ALL of those nations have regulations. You can't name any nations that don't because the idea is silly and absurd. [...]
You can't have a flourishing nation without regulation. The question is how much regulation and what kind of regulation but not "if" there will be regulation. And I think we can now agree that there are no flourishing societies without regulations, right?
[...]
Broad brush, blanket statements are not conducive to skepticism and critical thinking. Regulation is requisite of flourishing nations. Nations like Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia, rated highest for economic freedom, have regulations, right? [...] They are just the rules for how to act in a society. All I'm trying to do is falsify your over the top broad brushed claim. Regulation isn't some evil. They are just rules.

Yes, all countries that exist or have existed have had regulations to some degree.
(I just want to reiterate that, when I talk about regulations, I am talking about the government initiating the use of force on people, rather than retaliating against those who have initiated force. That is, the government using its distinctive powers for something other than the protection of individual rights.)
But it does not logically follow from the fact that no country has ever been observed without regulations, that no country could possibly work without them; just as it would not follow that, since every horse one tribe or one world has seen is some (varying) mixture of brown and white, that no completely white horse would "work" in reality.

There are times and ways in which it is valid to generalize a number of observations into a principle, but a simple "All known X are mixtures of Y and Z. Therefore an X that is pure Y is impossible," is not one of them.

Originally Posted by RandFan

Would you be willing to entertain the idea that regulations are not a priori good or bad?

I do not believe anything a priori, in the full sense of the term. All knowledge is based on sense experience, including all principles.

A principle is a generalization induced from experience that represents a basic fact about the world. "The initiation of physical force is (to the extent applied) destructive to human life," is one such principle. It is based on general observational evidence that goes much deeper, and is much more pervasive than the HDI's of various countries, today. In my view, this "broad brush" is justified.

The condensed argument for this principle goes like this:
Premise 1: Man's basic means of survival and flourishing is the use of his mind.
Premise 2: Physical force, to the extent that it is initiated, is destructive to the mind's functioning and ability to deal with reality, (for both the victim and perpetrator.)
Conclusion: Therefore, the initiation of physical force is destructive to human life.

It would take a very long, drawn-out discussion of philosophical issues, conceptual analysis, and examples to thoroughly argue for the premises of the above deduction. What I can recommend is reading (or re-reading) the links above, then "Galt's Speech" from Atlas Shrugged, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand, and looking at today's world around you, and at history, in light of those ideas.
(By the way, I have a blog that I'm working on that likely will eventually cover the issue of the initiation of physical force: Objectivism for Deep Thinkers. It may be a little while before I get there, though.)

[Sword of Apollo]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

[...]
Assume a libertarian president appointed 12 libertarian judges approved by a libertarian congress.

1) is it safe to assume that OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration ) and MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration) and related legislation would be dismantled?

2) if all that happened, would the number of deaths per ton of coal mined in 2021 be more than, less, than, or equal to the number of deaths per ton of coal mined in 2011?

[For the record, I'm not a libertarian, but an Objectivist. There is a philosophical (and frequently, political) difference between the two.]

1) Yes.

2) Less than. It is not safety regulations that drive improvements in workplace safety, but increased knowledge, technology, and the free-market competition for labor; (competition within an industry and between industries.) If workers do not like the conditions and/or dangers in their jobs, they can decide to discuss it with the management, leave the company in favor of another within the same industry, or leave the industry altogether. A lack of restrictive government regulations makes this movement much easier: people can found companies, hire and fire, much more rapidly and cheaply. Government regulation tends to entrench the companies that have the favor of the government, and hinder new companies from being founded. Thus it tends to stifle dynamic competition.

Knowledge of dangers that has not been acquired cannot be applied to the problem of safety by government regulation. Technology that has not been invented cannot be mandated by regulation. Once such knowledge/technology has come into being, the workers can demand it as part of the condition for their labor.

Government safety regulation that is desirable and economically feasible to implement in a particular sector, is, by that very fact, superfluous to the free market which would have implemented it anyway through the demand of employees and the competition for labor. Government safety regulations that are not economically feasible to implement are ignored or cheated upon if the employees and employers can get away with it. If such regulations are strictly enforced, then they create unemployment, cripple or destroy the industry.

The historical statistics I have seen show no effect of child labor legislation on child mortality:

a) Among boys, ages 10-14 in Sweden, the mortality rate was 35/1000 in 1775, and 15/1000 in 1880. Child labor legislation was passed in 1881, and the curve of the graph was not affected. There was no sudden drop in child mortality, but continued smoothly downward.

b) In England and Wales, child mortality, ages 10-14, both sexes, was 9/1000 in 1840 and had decreased to 3/1000 by 1910.

c) Belgium's child mortality rate (10-14) was decreasing steadily for 30 years before any child labor legislation was passed in 1886, and did not decrease more rapidly afterwards.

These statistics are based on graphs that Stuart Hayashi of Hawaii has in his Facebook pictures. They are for his upcoming book, currently titled: The Nature of Liberty: The Biological Case for Individual Rights.

The sources are:
a) R. Steckel, L. Sandberg: "Was Industrialization Hazardous to Your Health? Not in Sweden!", Health and Welfare During Industrialization

b) England and Wales: Total Population - Death Rates by Year of Birth, Human Mortality Database

c) Belgium - Death Rates, Human Mortality Database

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by Robrob

Total wingnut fantasy.



Total wingnut fantasy.

Bweaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!!

Please, tell me your explanation of it then -- I need another laugh!

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Sword of Apollo

But it does not logically follow from the fact that no country has ever been observed without regulations, that no country could possibly work without them; just as it would not follow that, since every horse one tribe or one world has seen is some (varying) mixture of brown and white, that no completely white horse would "work" in reality.

Given human nature and large societies, it's so unlikely as to be absurd. Not impossible. Your logic is correct but it doesn't really tell us much other than what isn't logically impossible is possible.

Quote:

I do not believe anything a priori, in the full sense of the term.

Not at all helpful to anything regarding the discussion. I've no idea if you are a solipsist or a believer in The Secret or just musing philosophically. It doesn't matter as it has no bearing on my statement. Either we accept reality as we observe it or we don't. If you don't then take it to the philosophy forum. My statement assumes reality as we see it.

Quote:

A principle is a generalization induced from experience that represents a basic fact about the world. "The initiation of physical force is (to the extent applied) destructive to human life," is one such principle. It is based on general observational evidence that goes much deeper, and is much more pervasive than the HDI's of various countries, today. In my view, this "broad brush" is justified.

The condensed argument for this principle goes like this:
Premise 1: Man's basic means of survival and flourishing is the use of his mind.
Premise 2: Physical force, to the extent that it is initiated, is destructive to the mind's functioning and ability to deal with reality, (for both the victim and perpetrator.)
Conclusion: Therefore, the initiation of physical force is destructive to human life.

It would take a very long, drawn-out discussion of philosophical issues, conceptual analysis, and examples to thoroughly argue for the premises of the above deduction. What I can recommend is reading (or re-reading) the links above, then "Galt's Speech" from Atlas Shrugged, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand, and looking at today's world around you, and at history, in light of those ideas.
(By the way, I have a blog that I'm working on that likely will eventually cover the issue of the initiation of physical force: Objectivism for Deep Thinkers. It may be a little while before I get there, though.)

First off, my NIC is RandFan. I've a library of Rand's books. Second, a long, drawn-out discussion of philosophical issues and conceptual analysis would be to violate parsimony. Don't get me wrong. I love philosophy. With over 40,000 posts spanning a 10 year stretch here I've discussed a lot of philosophy. I've just no interest in flights of fancy.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Sword of Apollo

[For the record, I'm not a libertarian, but an Objectivist. There is a philosophical (and frequently, political) difference between the two.]

1) Yes.

2) Less than. It is not safety regulations that drive improvements in workplace safety, but increased knowledge, technology, and the free-market competition for labor; (competition within an industry and between industries.) If workers do not like the conditions and/or dangers in their jobs, they can decide to discuss it with the management, leave the company in favor of another within the same industry, or leave the industry altogether. A lack of restrictive government regulations makes this movement much easier: people can found companies, hire and fire, much more rapidly and cheaply. Government regulation tends to entrench the companies that have the favor of the government, and hinder new companies from being founded. Thus it tends to stifle dynamic competition.

Knowledge of dangers that has not been acquired cannot be applied to the problem of safety by government regulation. Technology that has not been invented cannot be mandated by regulation. Once such knowledge/technology has come into being, the workers can demand it as part of the condition for their labor.

Government safety regulation that is desirable and economically feasible to implement in a particular sector, is, by that very fact, superfluous to the free market which would have implemented it anyway through the demand of employees and the competition for labor. Government safety regulations that are not economically feasible to implement are ignored or cheated upon if the employees and employers can get away with it. If such regulations are strictly enforced, then they create unemployment, cripple or destroy the industry.

The historical statistics I have seen show no effect of child labor legislation on child mortality:

a) Among boys, ages 10-14 in Sweden, the mortality rate was 35/1000 in 1775, and 15/1000 in 1880. Child labor legislation was passed in 1881, and the curve of the graph was not affected. There was no sudden drop in child mortality, but continued smoothly downward.

b) In England and Wales, child mortality, ages 10-14, both sexes, was 9/1000 in 1840 and had decreased to 3/1000 by 1910.

c) Belgium's child mortality rate (10-14) was decreasing steadily for 30 years before any child labor legislation was passed in 1886, and did not decrease more rapidly afterwards.

These statistics are based on graphs that Stuart Hayashi of Hawaii has in his Facebook pictures. They are for his upcoming book, currently titled: The Nature of Liberty: The Biological Case for Individual Rights.

The sources are:
a) R. Steckel, L. Sandberg: "Was Industrialization Hazardous to Your Health? Not in Sweden!", Health and Welfare During Industrialization

b) England and Wales: Total Population - Death Rates by Year of Birth, Human Mortality Database

c) Belgium - Death Rates, Human Mortality Database

Thank you.

I apologize to the others for the derail.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Premise 1: Man's basic means of survival and flourishing is the use of his mind.
Premise 2: Physical force, to the extent that it is initiated, is destructive to the mind's functioning and ability to deal with reality, (for both the victim and perpetrator.)
Conclusion: Therefore, the initiation of physical force is destructive to human life.

P1: People who live in a society will have conflicts.
P2: Regulations, like traffic laws, are in part a means to reduce conflict.
P3: *The advent of society and regulation and the advancement of those regulations have resulted in a long term trend of decreased violence.
C: Therefore, regulation is conducive to social cohesion and reduced conflict.

*Pinker Myth of Violence

[Border Reiver]

Originally Posted by RandFan

P1: People who live in a society will have conflicts.
P2: Regulations, like traffic laws, are in part a means to reduce conflict.
P3: *The advent of society and regulation and the advancement of those regulations have resulted in a long term trend of decreased violence.
C: Therefore, regulation is conducive to social cohesion and reduced conflict.

*Pinker Myth of Violence

But Mr. Kirkpatrick says that government is the "biggest purveyor of interpersonal violence in any given area" and that laws are the means by which they will kidnap me, assault me and infect me with AIDS.

Or I can recognize that ideology doesn't usually match reality....

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

But Mr. Kirkpatrick says that government is the "biggest purveyor of interpersonal violence in any given area" and that laws are the means by which they will kidnap me, assault me and infect me with AIDS.

Or I can recognize that ideology doesn't usually match reality....

Yeah, the fact that the prevailing GOP and libertarian paradigms didn't map to reality was a big influence on me moving to the left. That said, I don't dismiss the problems of govt force and violence completely. I think Malcolm has a point to make I just think he makes it really poorly and really overplays his hand. As you say, it's so far from reality that it's comical. It really is.

[Sword of Apollo]

I have created a new thread to answer some of the comments about the housing bubble/financial crisis, rather than go further off-topic: Government Regulations are the Basic Cause of the Financial Crisis.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Sword of Apollo

I have created a new thread to answer some of the comments about the housing bubble/financial crisis, rather than go further off-topic: Government Regulations are the Basic Cause of the Financial Crisis.

There are not enough laughing dog emoticons in the universe for that howler.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

There are not enough laughing dog emoticons in the universe for that howler.

I watched one of the videos from that new thread. It claims that capitalism doesn't exist and didn't exist just prior to the crises. Yeah, that's a non-starter.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I watched one of the videos from that new thread. It claims that capitalism doesn't exist and didn't exist just prior to the crises. Yeah, that's a non-starter.

And you know, when I was a Libertarian, I understood that there are degrees of capitalism like there are degrees of government.

It doesn't have to be 100% unregulated capitalism vs cultural revolution communism.

It doesn't have to be anarchy vs "all which is not prohibited is mandatory".

There are degrees in between those, and there have to be. The end points are not stable states and will change without a doubt. They could only ever be approached. And I doubt the wisdom of even trying to get that close.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

And you know, when I was a Libertarian, I understood that there are degrees of capitalism like there are degrees of government.

It doesn't have to be 100% unregulated capitalism vs cultural revolution communism.

It doesn't have to be anarchy vs "all which is not prohibited is mandatory".

There are degrees in between those, and there have to be. The end points are not stable states and will change without a doubt. They could only ever be approached. And I doubt the wisdom of even trying to get that close.

Exactly. The idea that there can only be unregulated capitalism or no capitalism is asinine. Like you I was a libertarian and conservative. I never bought that nonsense and I've never gotten anyone to point to one of these true capitalist utopias.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

There are not enough laughing dog emoticons in the universe for that howler.

Originally Posted by RandFan

I watched one of the videos from that new thread. It claims that capitalism doesn't exist and didn't exist just prior to the crises. Yeah, that's a non-starter.

I just posted in that other thread suggesting the title of it should perhaps be changed to "American Government Regulations are the Basic Cause of the Financial Crisis" seeing as the financial regulations which exist in Canada meant it did not experience the subprime mortgage fiasco and consequent housing market collapse.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

...Mr. Kirkpatrick says that government is the "biggest purveyor of interpersonal violence in any given area" and that laws are the means by which they will kidnap me, assault me and infect me with AIDS. Or I can recognize that ideology doesn't usually match reality....

Close. Easy enough to use the search function and get it right:...

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

...The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). A law is a threat by the State to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstances.

A law is not the means, a law is a threat. Armed agents, prisons, and HIV+ inmates are the means.
"Ideological" is an uncomplimentary way to say "systematic" or "principled". Antonyms include "scatter-brained" and "unscrupulous". Formal systems abstract from reality. The only thing which matches reality is reality. Theories are like maps; they do not have to be wet where they indicate rivers nor hot where they indicate volcanos.

[Border Reiver]

A law is not a threat - a law may simply be a statement of how the governing body must do "x".

That can be how a department or function of government is organized (ex. National Defence Act, Federal Court Act), how money shall be collected and spent (Financial Administration Act), or to give effect to an announcement of national interest (Ukrainian Internment Act).

Many acts do have penalties for non- compliance (Criminal Code, Income Tax Act) but reducing all penalties for non-compliance to kidnap and assault is dishonest at best. It is the equivalent of stating that all authority is tyranny or that private property is theft. It is playing to a extreme view of any subject and while it can be argued that such a view is correct, it has the effect of stifling debate as it does not bear a close relation to reality as people understand it.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

Close. Easy enough to use the search function and get it right:...
A law is not the means, a law is a threat. Armed agents, prisons, and HIV+ inmates are the means.
"Ideological" is an uncomplimentary way to say "systematic" or "principled". Antonyms include "scatter-brained" and "unscrupulous". Formal systems abstract from reality. The only thing which matches reality is reality. Theories are like maps; they do not have to be wet where they indicate rivers nor hot where they indicate volcanos.

A law is when your fellow citizens decide that some sort of behavior is detrimental to all, and prohibit it.

Now, we can either make laws, or we can just decide to refuse to deal with such people in ANY way and let them starve and freeze. I think laws are the more humane choice. Shunning is so gothic anyway.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

A law is when your fellow citizens decide that some sort of behavior is detrimental to all, and prohibit it.

Only in a polity that practices direct democracy is this true.* In general, a law is a threat by a government (however established) to make someone's life miserable, under some specified circumstances.

*Even here there are problems: who gets to compose the wording on which the polity votes? Who gets to count the votes and decide the winner?

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

A law is not a threat - a law may simply be a statement of how the governing body must do "x".¹
That can be how a department or function of government is organized (ex. National Defence Act, Federal Court Act), how money shall be collected and spent (Financial Administration Act), or to give effect to an announcement of national interest (Ukrainian Internment Act).

Many acts do have penalties for non- compliance (Criminal Code, Income Tax Act) but reducing all penalties for non-compliance to kidnap and assault is dishonest at best². It is the equivalent of stating that all authority is tyranny or that private property is theft.³ It is playing to a extreme view of any subject and while it can be argued that such a view is correct, it has the effect of stifling debate as it does not bear a close relation to reality as people understand it.⁴

Here. Legal realism:...

Quote:

To elaborate this message, Holmes first turned to the distinction between law and morals: “The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law.”...For the bad man, “legal duty” signifies only “a prophecy that if he does certain things he will be subjected to disagreeable consequences by way of imprisonment or compulsory payment of money.”

On what basis does the accused make this prophecy? The realist will make this expectation on the basis of the government's statements of its intentions and its record of backing its words with action.
1. I grant the existence of "housekeeping" statutes. That does not alter the point. If you insist, I will include the tedious exceptions to the definition of law henceforth.
2. Go "dishonest" yourself,
3. "All authority is tyranny"? Absurd. The attempt to construct a parallel to the definition of law begs the question. You suggest that the definition is mistaken without making any case.
The legal regime of title (private property) and contract law is far from "theft". If you want to argue that position, go for it, and mark yourself as a Marxist loon. Again, the attempt to construct a parallel to the definition of law begs the question. You (implicitly) assert the conclusion without making a case.
4. "Correct" AND "it does not bear a close relation to reality"? Sorry. I don't use the English language that way.

[Border Reiver]

If any law with a penalty is a threat to be assaulted, kidnapped and infected with HIV, then stating that all authority is tyranny isn't far from that line of reasoning.

Authority: 1.a. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine or judge;
B.One that is invested with that power, especially government, or a body of government officials;

Tyranny: Any harsh discipline or oppression

Sorry, you are the one who keeps arguing extremes. The Marxist position that all property is theft is a logical position based on Marxist ideology. And the Marxist line of thought bears as close a resemblance to reality as does any ideological position.

Rigid adherence to ANY ideology denies us the ability to compromise when necessary and politics is the need to find a compromise between competing interests to get society to be able to move and get along.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

Only in a polity that practices direct democracy is this true.* In general, a law is a threat by a government (however established) to make someone's life miserable, under some specified circumstances.

*Even here there are problems: who gets to compose the wording on which the polity votes? Who gets to count the votes and decide the winner?

LOL!

You want to live in splendid isolation? I will happily buy you a ticket to the place farthest from anyplace on the planet. It's in the middle of the southern Indian ocean and the only thing there is an automatic air navigation beacon.

Because otherwise you are going to be subject to the laws the rest of us make.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

LOL!

You want to live in splendid isolation? I will happily buy you a ticket to the place farthest from anyplace on the planet. It's in the middle of the southern Indian ocean and the only thing there is an automatic air navigation beacon.

Because otherwise you are going to be subject to the laws the rest of us make.

iIn the USA or most "democratic" countries legislators make laws. Or interest groups write laws and their pet legislators introduce them.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

If any law with a penalty is a threat to be assaulted, kidnapped and infected with HIV, then stating that all authority is tyranny isn't far from that line of reasoning.

Why? You keep saying this, but I won't amend my definition on your say-so alone. I have legal authority (Justice Holmes) and academic authority (Weber). I'm in good company. You know better?

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

...you are the one who keeps arguing extremes.¹ The Marxist position that all property is theft is a logical position based on Marxist ideology.² And the Marxist line of thought bears as close a resemblance to reality as does any ideological position. Rigid adherence to ANY ideology denies us the ability to compromise when necessary and politics is the need to find a compromise between competing interests³ to get society to be able to move and get along.⁴

1. What's extreme? I offer definitions of "government" and "law" that agree substantially with dictionaries of political science and sociology. They even agreed with standard English language dictionaries if you substitute "interpersonal violence" for "power", "force", "enforce", and "authority" (which leads back to "power", "force", etc.).
2. "Logical"? No. Predictable? Sure. Wikipedia attributes the phrase "property is theft" to Proudhon.
3. I agree. It helps to get agreement on definitions on some basic terms. Like "law".
4. Get along? You mean, like constructing false parallels between a correct assertion and Marxist nonsense?

[Border Reiver]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

Why? You keep saying this, but I won't amend my definition on your say-so alone. I have legal authority (Justice Holmes) and academic authority (Weber). I'm in good company. You know better?1. What's extreme? I offer definitions of "government" and "law" that agree substantially with dictionaries of political science and sociology. They even agreed with standard English language dictionaries if you substitute "interpersonal violence" for "power", "force", "enforce", and "authority" (which leads back to "power", "force", etc.).
2. "Logical"? No. Predictable? Sure. Wikipedia attributes the phrase "property is theft" to Proudhon.
3. I agree. It helps to get agreement on definitions on some basic terms. Like "law".
4. Get along? You mean, like constructing false parallels between a correct assertion and Marxist nonsense?

1. Your definitions are the extreme points. while it is perfectly reasonable to recognize that the government is the body that controlls the "legal application of force" and that if you ignore government or the rules of society long enough or hard enough that imprisonment is a possibility it is not within the general experience that the law is a threat to violence and imprisonment - most contraventions of legal statutes that we are familiar with - traffic violations result in fines, violations of building codes result in fines, etc - it is only when fines are ignored and there is little to no other choice are penal sanctions imposed. Using the position that "Well, it is a possibility in extreme situations, so that is how the matter should be described for all circumstances" is an extreme position.

2. Using the same logic you have used to describe laws (and Marxist thought) the definition of private property is the same as theft (from the collective). It is an extreme position.

Arguing from the extremes does little except polarize the debate and the debaters and does not encourage compromise.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

iIn the USA or most "democratic" countries legislators make laws. Or interest groups write laws and their pet legislators introduce them.

And we the People delegate that authority to people we trust.

Who the hell are you to say we are wrong?

If we decided to, we could at any time elect representatives pledged to change the constitution and go to direct democracy. Until we do, either accept our will, or you are invited to go elsewhere.